Another complaint is that, in acknowledging copies of the Rights of Man, which Paine had sent him, Washington had coldly sidestepped all comment. As a matter of fact, the president, who wished to remain nonpartisan, had used common sense. Paine would undoubtedly have published any compliment Washington sent him. Jefferson was, indeed, to get into hot water by having a letter he wrote to an American printer appear as an introduction and seeming endorsement of Paine’s extremely controversial work.9
Moreover, Thomas Paine never forgave Washington for his utter silence to his cries for help when he was imprisoned during the violence of the French Revolution. When Paine made it back to America, he used every occasion he could to attack his erstwhile friend, while Washington never responded publicly.10 The complete severance of their former relationship is underscored by the words of George Washington scholar, John C. Fitzpatrick. This passage begins with Washington’s rebuttal to an open letter Paine had written, criticizing our first President: “…absolute falsehoods. As an evidence whereof, and of the plan they are pursuing, I send you a letter from Mr. Paine to me, Printed in this city and disseminated with great industry.” The letter, “Printed in the city and disseminated with great industry,” was dated July 30, 1796, and published by Benjamin Franklin Bache, a newspaper publisher and a contemporary of George Washington who was severely critical of our founding father—not a popular stance at the time. It was republished in Dublin and London in 1797. It ended thus: “As to you sir, treacherous in private friendship (for so you have been to me, and that in the day of danger) and a hypocrite in public life, the world will be puzzled to decide, whether you are an apostate or an imposter; whether you have abandoned good principles or whether you ever had any.”
So when Boller suggests a parallel between the theological vocabulary of Washington and Paine, in the following statement, in light of the above, it is clear that he entirely neutralizes the intense disagreement that an authentic description of their relationship requires.
Most of Washington’s official communications during the Revolution contained no references to the Christian religion itself. The appeal, as we have seen, was customarily made to “Heaven,” “Providence,” “Supreme Being,” “supreme disposer of all events,” and to “the great arbiter of the Universe.” All of these were, of course, expressions that a good Deist—like Thomas Paine, for instance—could use in all sincerity without in any way committing himself to the theology and doctrines of the Christian church.11
DEISM IN WASHINGTON’S LANGUAGE?
Part of the shading of the truth in this debate is attempting to identify Washington’s language with that of the “hard Deist” Thomas Paine by pointing to his use of phrases such as “Heaven,” “Providence,” “Supreme Being,” “Supreme Disposer of all events,” and “the great Arbiter of the Universe.” But let’s take Boller at his own words. Are the names for God used by Washington “expressions that a good Deist—like Thomas Paine—could use in all sincerity, without in any way committing himself to the theology and doctrines of the Christian Church”? First we must ask, if Paine believed that Providence was a Christian mythology, how could he employ each of these terms that argue for God’s direct governance in human history? It seems clear to us, however, that Paine himself sensed the incongruity implicit in Boller’s claim, since Paine did not use these terms in the Age of Reason. Instead, Paine’s truncated Deistic theological terminology limited itself to the meager list of merely “God,” “Creator,” and “Almighty.” When the variety of names for God that Washington used throughout his writings is considered, however, one discovers around a hundred different titles for God.12 These titles are remarkably diverse. It’s almost as though Washington did not want to use the same title for God a second time. Yet he did use the word “God” over a hundred times and the word “heaven” over a hundred times. The honorific titles for God such as “the Great Author of the Universe” or the “Great Disposer of Human Events” are only samples of his vast theological vocabulary by which he sought to honor God.
So, while Paine does not use these titles that Washington so frequently employs, we have also found these same titles for God in the writings of other great Christian preachers of Washington’s day, whose messages were among the sermons that Washington purchased, collected, and bound, and were found in his library when he died. Reverend Samuel Miller is an example of an orthodox minister of Washington’s day using terms for God that our President used. Reverend Miller was a Presbyterian minister and certainly no Deist. His July 4, 1793, message based on 2 Corinthians 3:17 was received by Washington and was bound in Washington’s sermon collection.13 Reverend Miller’s sermon, entitled “A Sermon on the Anniversary of the Independence of America,” refers to God in the following ways:
• “the supreme Arbiter of nations”
• “the grand Source”
• “the Deity himself “
• “the Sovereign Dispenser of all blessings”
• “the Governor of the universe”
• “thou exalted Source of liberty”14
When George Washington used his multitude of respectful titles for God, he was simply employing a Baroque style popular among many of the ministers at the time.15 He was not showing that he harbored some sort of secret, unspoken code of unbelief that would take two centuries for scholars to decode.16
SILENCE FROM WASHINGTON’S DIARIES
One of the arguments we have to assess is the completeness of Washington’s diaries—or really, incompleteness. Boller claims that Washington’s Christianity is not tenable based on his church attendance recorded in his private diary.17 If Washington didn’t note it, so the argument goes, he didn’t attend. But there is a problem here, both with the source and the logic. First, many of Washington’s diaries are missing. Second, the silence of the record does not prove it did not happen, or that it was not important to him. The records of his diaries are important. But it is difficult to make a definitive case from the brief and incomplete entries that Washington made in them. For example, when he presided over the Constitutional Convention, he barely wrote a word in his diaries about these epoch-making events.18 Moreover, he never entered a word about the historic debates that occurred there. Does that mean he barely attended the sessions (not so) or was indifferent to them? By this same logic, one could infer that Washington’s breeding and care of his hunting hounds were more important than the Constitutional Convention, since in his diaries he so often mentions his dogs by name! Here we choose not to follow Boller in imposing an uncertain and questionable standard to discern George Washington’s spiritual history. Instead of arguments from silence, we choose to accent the written words and substantiated actions of Washington to make our case for his Christian faith.
FAMILY INFLUENCES
We will show from the historical data that Washington was deeply influenced by his godly mother, Mary Ball Washington, and his older half-brother, Lawrence, who provided him with careful instruction in the Christian faith as evidenced by his childhood school papers and his school books, as well as by their active family and personal participation in their church. Along with his family’s impact on his faith, we need to also recognize the influence of his religious neighbors—the British noble family of the Fairfaxes that owned vast sections of the Old Dominion. Records show that they went to church together, that Washington was urged by the cousin of Lord Fairfax to have prayers for his troops as a young soldier. His childhood and life-long friend, Bryan Fairfax, actually was the pastor of the Episcopal Church in Alexandria for a time, where Washington worshiped after his return from the Revolutionary War, as well as after his return from the presidency. We will consider the family testimony about Washington’s faith—those who were in a position to know his faith the best. We will find that the family witness to his faith is uniform. In their minds there was no doubt that George Washington was a Christian. Perhaps this is why Professor Boller and many recent scholars pass over this extensive evidence in utter silence, treating it as though it were historically irrelevant.
THE CHURCHMAN
George Washington is famous for being a churchman. During the Revolutionary War, he at times actually rode on horseback some twenty miles to get to a church. The Reverend John Stockton Littell, Rector of St. James’ Church in Keene N.H., in his 1913 book George Washington: Christian19 records a story that reportedly took place in Litchfield in New England, where Washington saw some of his soldiers throwing stones at an old Anglican c hurch building. He said, “Stop throwing the stones! I am a churchman, and we should not deal with the church in this way.” Whether or not one accepts the historicity of this anecdote, Washington’s own records show he worshiped in Christian churches not only in his native Virginia, but also from New England to Georgia as he traveled on horseback through the vast and largely unsettled United States. He went to church all of his life, from the time he was a young boy to when he became a soldier. He led in devotions in his camp, when there was no church or chaplain present. As commander in chief and as president, he sought to set an example for his followers by regular worship. When he became a retired president and proprietor of Mount Vernon, he continued to be a consistent worshiper.
In 1755, Washington played the role of Chaplain when he led a funeral service for his commanding officer General William Braddock. Washington read the funeral service by torchlight, as his British soldiers were fleeing from the Indian warriors, whose surprise attack had killed or wounded every officer. Washington was the only officer to escape unharmed. In the service he read from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, giving his fallen General a Christian funeral.20 The Scriptures and prayers Washington read that sorrowful night by torchlight included:
I AM the resurrection and the life, saith the Lord: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. St. John xi. 25, 26.
I KNOW that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shalt stand at the latter day upon the earth. And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another. Job xix. 25, 26, 27.
WE brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the Name of the Lord. 1 Tim. vi. 7. Job I. 21.
O MERCIFUL God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the resurrection and the life; in whom whosoever believeth shall live, though he die; and whosoever liveth, and believeth in him, shall not die eternally; who also hath taught us, by his holy Apostle Saint Paul, not to be sorry, as men without hope, for them that sleep in him; We meekly beseech thee, O Father, to raise us from the death of sin unto the life of righteousness; that, when we shall depart this life, we may rest in him, as our hope is this our brother doth; and that, at the general Resurrection in the last day, we may be found acceptable in thy sight; and receive that blessing, which thy well-beloved Son shall then pronounce to all that love and fear thee, saying, Come, ye blessed children of my Father, receive the kingdom prepared for you from the beginning of the world. Grant this, we beseech thee, O merciful Father, through Jesus Christ, our Mediator and Redeemer. Amen.
Thus, we know that the lips of Washington spoke the name of Jesus Christ as he shared the comfort of the Gospel through the historic liturgy of the Anglican Church.
Later in his life, he was very active in worship. The records show that he went to church on Sundays while he served in the office of the presidency. When he retired, he continued to worship in the church. For much of his life, Pohick Church in Lorton, Virginia, was his main church; after the War, Christ Church in Alexandria was his place of worship. Both buildings are still standing today. If you visit them, you can still see the pew boxes he worshiped in and that his records show he purchased for himself and his family. What did Washington pray when he went to these churches? They included Christian prayers from the Book of Common Prayer that he prayed aloud with the entire congregation. These prayers are confessions of sin and repentance and calling upon Jesus Christ for mercy and forgiveness. To the retort that the prayer book was not that important to Washington, consider that he not only ordered a family Bible for Mount Vernon, he also ordered prayer books for each member of his family, and specially ordered one for himself that was to be sized to fit in his pocket, so he could carry it with him.21
THE COLONIAL CHURCH’S REREDOS
At the Anglican churches Washington worshiped in or visited, the parishioners would read from the “reredos” during the service. This was a large wall plaque behind the altar with words painted on it. These words were from the Bible and Christian teaching and were usually emblazoned on three panels. One consisted of the Apostles’ Creed;22 the next had the Lord’s Prayer.23 And the third panel listed out Exodus 20, i.e., the Ten Commandments,24 and sometimes included the Golden Rule of Matthew 7:12.25 There was a very practical motive for these texts to be placed on the main wall of the church—books and printing were very expensive in colonial America. This was a more economical means to provide the essentials of the Children’s Catechism and the essentials of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer for an entire congregation.
The authors of this present book visited Christ Church in Alexandria, Virginia, and they have a reredos there. That particular reredos is said to be the very one that was used in Washington’s day. We also discovered a similar reredos when we visited Pohick Church in Lorton. (The Union Army occupied the abandoned and deteriorating colonial brick church building and inflicted further damage. It was restored to a reasonable facsimile of its colonial interior during the years 1901-1916.) You can also see the Apostles’ Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ten Commandments at Bruton Parish Church in Williamsburg, where Washington attended when he was participating in the House of Burgesses. This is true also of Trinity Church in Newport, Rhode Island, where Washington also had his own pew. (Please see the different reredoses in the photos.) As the congregation followed the Anglican liturgy, they would read out loud these holy texts from the reredos.
WASHINGTON’S WORSHIP IN VIEW OF HIS CONSCIENCE AND CHARACTER
Washington was a man with a sensitive conscience and a strong character. We want to take a moment to develop that point, so we can return with a clearer understanding of Washington’s religious practices. Why would a man of integrity engage in so many Christian activities, unless he really believed the Christian message?
The force of this question is strengthened by Washington’s repeated statements concerning the power of his own conscience and his deep concern for his character.26 To General Nathanael Greene, he wrote on October 6, 1781, “I bore much for the sake of peace and the public good. My conscience tells me I acted rightly in these transactions, and should they ever come to the knowledge of the world I trust I shall stand acquitted by it.” On Dec. 7, 1783, he wrote to the Legislature of New Jersey, “For me, it is enough to have seen the divine Arm visibly outstretched for our deliverance, and to have received the approbation of my Country, and my Conscience….” To Henry Lee he wrote on September 22, 1788, “While doing what my conscience informed me was right, as it respected my God, my Country and myself, I could despise all the party clamor and unjust censure….” If Washington did not believe in something, his conscience would not permit him to participate. If he did not subscribe to the Apostles’ Creed, why then would he have said it? If he did not believe in Jesus Christ, why would he not have passed on participating in the service? This is particularly pertinent, since it was his character that caused him to be the unquestioned leader of our youthful nation. Consider what congressional leader and future President John Adams wrote to his wife Abigail on February 21, 1777,
Many persons are extremely dissatisfied with numbers of the general officers of the highest rank. I don’t mean the Commander-in-Chief. His character is justly very high, but Schuyler, Putnam, Spencer, Heath, are thought by very few to be capable of the great commands they hold.27
In this context, consider Washington’s consistently strong words about his deep commitment to candor, honesty, and character. To the Earl of Loudoun, in March 1757, Washington wrote, “My nature is open and honest and free from guile.” To Henry Knox he wrote on July 16, 1798, “But my dear Sir, as you always have found, and trust ever will find, candor a prominent trait of my character.” To President John Adams, he wrote on September 25, 1798, “…let the purity of my intentions; the candor of my declarations; and a due respect for my own character, be received as an apology.” In the same letter he said, “…I would have told you with the frankness and candor which I hope will ever mark my character….” To General Gates he wrote on January 4, 1778, “Thus Sir, with an openness and candor which I hope will ever characterize and mark my conduct have I complied with your request.” To James McHenry, he wrote on April 8, 1794, “…with my inauguration, I resolved firmly, that no man should ever charge me justly with deception.” He wrote from Valley Forge on January 2, 1778 to the President of Congress, “I did not, nor shall I ever [accept a gentleman as a friend that I regard as an enemy], till I am capable of the arts of dissimulation. These I despise….” In other words, Washington sought to act so that he could not be accused of telling lies. To Alexander Hamilton, he wrote on August 28, 1788, “I hope I shall always possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain (what I consider the most enviable of all titles) the character of an honest man….” To Edmund Randolph, July 31, 1795, “I am [not] disposed to quit the ground I have taken, unless circumstances more imperious than have yet come to my knowledge should compel it; for there is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily.” He wrote to Timothy Pickering, February 10, 1799, “Concealment is a species of misinformation.” To Timothy Pickering, August 29, 1797, “Candor is not a more conspicuous trait in the character of Governments than it is of individuals.” To James Madison, November 30, 1785, “It is an old adage, that honesty is the best policy. This applies to public as well as private life, to States as well as individuals.” To Richard Washington, April 15, 1757, “What can be so proper as the truth?”
To say Washington was a Deist—even a “soft Deist”—would imply that he did not have a problem violating his conscience each time he worshiped in his church. It is difficult to imagine how Washington, with his expressed concern for his character and his open commitment to honesty and candor, along with his sensitive conscience, could repeatedly and consistently make a public reaffirmation of a faith that he really did not believe.
The burden of proof is clearly on the side of those who claim that Washington was a Deist. To Washington, integrity and conscience were vitally important. A good conscience and hope of divine approval were essential for Washington’s sense of integrity. Thus he wrote August 18, 1786, to Marquis de Chastellux, “Perhaps nothing can excite more perfect harmony in the soul than to have this string [avoidance of vanity and false humility] vibrate in unison with the internal consciousness of rectitude in our intentions and an humble hope of approbation from the supreme disposer of all things.”
As a man of honor, he did not determine his actions for outward recognition. To his friend the Marquis De Chastellux, he wrote on August 18, 1786, “I consider it an indubitable mark of mean-spiritedness and pitiful vanity to court applause from the pen or tongue of man.” To Dr. James Craik, March 25, 1784 he wrote, “I will frankly declare to you, my dear doctor, that any memoirs of my life, distinct and unconnected with the general history of the war, would rather hurt my feelings than tickle my pride whilst I lived. I had rather glide gently down the stream of life, leaving it to posterity to think and say what they please of me, than by any act of mine to have vanity or ostentation imputed to me . . . I do not think vanity is a trait of my character.”
George Washington was either a true churchman or spiritual imposter. He once wrote to Robert Stewart on April 27, 1763. To guarantee the truth of his letter, he used the phrase: “On my honor and the faith of a Christian.” Clearly his honor and integrity meant a great deal to him. From this statement, we see that his honor was inseparable from and strengthened by his faith as a Christian.
WASHINGTON AND THE EUCHARIST
