If Washington were a Deist, he would have seen Jesus merely as a human, albeit perhaps an extraordinary teacher and a unique religious personality.¹¹ This is important for our discussion, because when one takes a mere human view of Jesus, as did Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, it actually causes one to be more casual in referring to Jesus. After all, in the view of the Deist, Jesus was only a man, even though a noteworthy person of history.

But for those who hold an historic Christian view of Jesus, He is “fully God and fully man in one person.” This was the view of Washington’s Anglican tradition that followed the ancient Council of Chalcedon.¹² In fact, the 1662 Book Of Common Prayer that Washington worshipped with until the birth of the Episcopal Church in 1789,¹³ required the regular use of what has been called the Athanasian Creed.¹⁴ At the conclusion of the Evening Prayer, the heading of Washington’s 1662 Book of Common Prayer gave this instruction: “Upon these Feasts; Christmas-day, the Epiphany, S. Matthias, Easter-day, Ascension-day, Whitsunday, S. John Baptist, S. James, S. Bartholomew, S. Matthew, S. Simon and S. Jude, S. Andrew, and upon Trinity-Sunday, shall be sung or said at Morning Prayer, instead of the Apostles Creed, this Confession of our Christian faith, commonly called the Creed of S. Athanasius, by the Minister and People Standing.” So on some thirteen Sundays each year, the Anglican Church affirmed these historic words of faith in the Trinity. If we very conservatively assume that Washington only made one of these Sunday services each year of his life until he became President at the age of fifty-seven, and at which time the newly organized American Episcopal Book of Common Prayer made this creed optional, that means that he would have already publicly affirmed the following words some fifty times:

Whoever will be saved: before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholick Faith. Which faith, except every one do keep whole and undefiled: without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholick faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son: and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one: the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible: and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals: but one eternal….So the Father is God, the son is God and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods: but one God . . . And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other: none is greater or less than another; But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together: and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid: The Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved: must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation: that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess: that our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, is God and man; God of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds: and man of the Substance of his mother, born in the world. Perfect God and perfect man: of reasonable soul, and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead: and inferior to the Father, as touching his Manhood. Who although he be God, and Man: yet he is not two, but one Christ;…Who suffered for our salvation: descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven; he sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty: from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies: and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good, shall go into life everlasting: and they that have done evil, into ever lasting fire. This is the Catholick Faith: which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.¹⁵

The point to see here is that these words, (not to mention those found in the Apostles Creed), which no Deist could honestly recite, were for a devout Anglican a declaration that the name of Jesus was not just a human name, but a divine name too. As we will see over and over in this book, those who hold that Washington was a Deist have ripped him out of his eighteenth century Anglican context.

THE HISTORICAL ANGLICAN CONCERN FOR THE SACRED NAME OF JESUS

It was not merely a commonplace fact of historical discussion when one spoke of Christ. Rather, Jesus was a sacred name that had to be guarded and kept holy. Accordingly, as the rerodos—the wall behind the altar with sacred writings—that Washington read from instructed him: “Thou shalt not use God’s name in vain.” His childhood “Rules of Civility” reinforced this in rule 108, “When you speak of God or his attributes, let it be seriously and with reverence.” Thus in his commonplace activities of farming, military action, business, and politics, the holy name of Jesus Christ would not normally be spoken aloud, if one is outside of a worship setting. In this instance, to “avoid” speaking or writing this holy name should not be construed as an act of unbelief, but of reverence instead.¹⁶ A parallel with the Jewish tradition is observable here. Observant Jews have historically avoided speaking the name of Jehovah (YHWH); similarly, Christians have avoided saying the name of Jesus in common parlance.

The careful personal use of Christ’s name by a devout Anglican in the eighteenth century would have been coupled with an equal concern to prevent the profane use of his sacred name. Deists, by contrast, not sharing these scruples, might actually use Jesus’ name far more frequently. Such is the case with Jefferson and Paine. Jefferson often speaks of Jesus from his Unitarian perspective¹⁷ that denied both the miracles and the deity of Jesus, but nevertheless honored his teaching.¹⁸ Paine’s Age Of Reason refers to the human Jesus often since, in his view, Jesus is not divine.¹⁹ But if one holds to the full deity of Christ, as expressed in the Nicene Creed²⁰ (from the 1789 American edition of the Book Of Common Prayer) that Washington regularly recited as President until his death, there is a deep feeling of reverence that is coupled with the name of Jesus Christ that seeks to preserve the sanctity of Christ’s name.

We believe that this is exactly what is found in Washington’s writings. In his General Orders, for example, he declares that his “feelings” had been “continually wounded” by the profanity and swearing of the soldiers. In his General Orders of July 29, 1779, he declares,

Many and pointed orders have been issued against that unmeaning and abominable custom of Swearing, not withstanding which, with much regret the General observes that it prevails, if possible, more than ever; His feelings are continually wounded by the Oaths and Imprecations of the soldiers whenever he is in hearing of them.

The Name of That Being, from whose bountiful goodness we are permitted to exist and enjoy the comforts of life is incessantly imprecated and prophaned in a manner as wanton as it is shocking. For the sake therefore of religion, decency and order, the General hopes and trusts that officers of every rank will use their influence and authority to check a vice, which is as unprofitable as it is wicked and shameful. If officers would make it an invariable rule to reprimand, and if that does not do punish soldiers for offences of this kind it could not fail of having the desired effect.²¹

Men throughout Western history, in difficult circumstances such as those encountered regularly by soldiers at war, have resorted to cursing, swearing, and profanity to express distress, anger, disgust, contempt, bravado or pain. The most poignant examples of this are not only when God’s name in general is profaned, but also when the name of Jesus Christ is irreverently hurled in a epithet of profane contempt. ²²

HONORIFIC TITLES FOR DEITY

Finally, and consistent with this discussion, we believe that on those occasions when Washington referred to Jesus Christ, he preferred to do so with titles of honor that were customary for his era. A devout Anglican in Washington’s day would have been careful to employ honorific titles to preserve the sanctity of this name that is “above every name.” (Philippians 2:9) Thus, we find in Washington’s writings various titles for Christ intended to bring him honor, and avoid placing his name into common communication. Examples include: “our gracious Redeemer,”²³ “Divine Author of our blessed Religion,”²⁴ “the great Lord and Ruler of Nations,”²⁵ “the Judge of the Hearts of Men,”²⁶ “Divine Author of Life and felicity,”²⁷ “the Lord, and Giver of all victory, to pardon our manifold sins,”²⁸ “the Lord, and Giver of Victory,”²⁹ “Giver of Life.”³⁰

Title page of The Virginia Almanack, signed by Washington, which he used to record his daily diary entries

Moreover, even Washington’s use of the names “God” and “Lord” and his many other names for deity are likely to include clear references to the deity of Christ as well.³¹ This is because of the Trinitarian context of early Virginia, well reflected by the Anglican commitment to the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed. The Athanasian Creed of Washington’s Anglican Church insisted: “So that in all things, as is aforesaid: The Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved: must thus think of the Trinity.” In fact, Virginia’s Trinitarian faith is evident in the title page of the Virginia Almanack that Washington used day after day and year after year to record his brief daily diary entries.³² The title pages of these almanacks do not simply say, “in the year of our Lord 1769” but instead they read, “in the year of our Lord God 1769.” The significance of this is increased, since in 1766 Washington did not use a Virginia Almanack, but instead (for some reason) used The Universal American Almanack printed in Philadelphia. Its title page says, “in the year of our Lord 1766.”³³ In the religiously pluralistic Quaker city of Philadelphia, the explicitly Trinitarian title “Lord God” was not used by the Universal Almanack. This Anglican emphasis upon the Trinity was later evident in the opening words of the peace treaty between America and Great Britain that ended the Revolutionary War. It began with unmistakably Trinitarian words: “In the Name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity. Amen.”

While Washington was also judicious in his use of the word Christian and Christianity, he employed them much more frequently. We will explore his interaction with Christian teaching in the chapter on Washington’s Christianity.

WASHINGTON’S ALLUSIONS TO THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST

Finally, is it really true, as Boller asserts, that Washington never refers to Jesus in his role as a teacher?³⁴ Perhaps he is technically correct in that Washington never explicitly discusses Jesus’ teaching ministry in any of his writings. But this in itself is hardly surprising, given the nature of his daily work and normal professional concerns. But it is, nevertheless, very clear that Washington often alludes to the teachings of Jesus recorded in the Gospels. Thus there are references to Jesus’ birth and its celebration.³⁵ There are references to Jesus’ death in his childhood papers and in his adult writing: “the blessed religion revealed in the Word of God will remain an eternal and awful monument to prove that the best Institutions may be abused by human depravity.”³⁶ Washington’s lifelong worship with the Book Of Common Prayer, as well as his commitment to the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles Of Religion, give insight into his views of the resurrection of Christ.³⁷

Although Boller entirely ignores them, there are numerous Gospel phrases in Washington’s writings from the teachings of Jesus, the one whom Washington publicly called “the Divine Author of our Blessed Religion.” Washington’s extensive references and allusions to the teachings of Jesus include: duties to God and man (the two great commandments, Matthew 22:36-40),³⁸ eternal rules (God’s Law, Matthew 5:17-19),³⁹ doing as one would be done by (the Golden Rule, Matthew 7:12),⁴⁰ the will of God (Matthew 6:10),⁴¹ daily bread (Matthew 6:11),⁴² deliver us from evil (Matthew 6:13),⁴³ Benign Parent (Good Father, Matthew 7:11),⁴⁴ enlightening sounds of the Gospel (Luke 2:10-15; Mark 1:14-15),⁴⁵ propagating the Gospel (Matthew 28:19-20),⁴⁶ professors [i.e. believers] of Christianity (John 3:16),⁴⁷ narrow path (Matthew 7:13),⁴⁸ thorny path (Matthew 13:3-7),⁴⁹ paths of life (Matthew 7:14),⁵⁰ way of life (John 14:6),⁵¹ road to Heaven (John 14:5-7),⁵² pour out His Holy Spirit (John 15:26),⁵³ ministers of the Gospel (Mark 10:43-45),⁵⁴ the joy (Matthew 5:13),⁵⁵ house divided, divide and we shall become weak (Matthew 12:25),⁵⁶ concern for one’s neighbor (Luke 10:29-37),⁵⁷ give to the poor (Matthew 5:42),⁵⁸ forgive and forget (Matthew 6:14-15; 5:43-44),⁵⁹ forgiveness a divine attribute (Mark 2:5-8),⁶⁰ repent and be forgiven (Luke 17:3),⁶¹ God’s care for His people (Matthew 6:30-33),⁶² your good father … a good Providence which will never fail to take care of his Children (Luke 11:9-13),⁶³ instruct the ignorant and reclaim the devious (Matthew 18:15-22),⁶⁴ the wise man who counts the cost (Luke 14:28),⁶⁵ the widow’s mite (Mark 12:41-44),⁶⁶ appeal to God and man for justice (Luke 18:1-8),⁶⁷ the millstone around one’s neck (Luke 17:1-2),⁶⁸ take up bed and walk (Mark 2:9),⁶⁹ good and faithful servant (Matthew 25:21, 23),⁷⁰ the wheat and the tares (Matthew 13:24-30),⁷¹ war, pestilence, famine (Matthew 24:6-7),⁷² wars and rumors of wars (Matthew 24:6),⁷³ cast lots (Matthew 27:35),⁷⁴ the aggravated vengeance of God (Luke 21:22),⁷⁵ the last trumpet (Matthew 24:31),⁷⁶ the roar of distant thunder, (Luke 21:25; John 12:28-29),⁷⁷ raise the dead to life again (Matthew 10:8; 17:23; Luke 7:22),⁷⁸ life eternal (Matthew 25:46),⁷⁹ eternal disgrace or reproach (Luke 6:22; 11:45),⁸⁰ bitterest curse this side of the grave (Mark 11:21; Matthew 25:41),⁸¹ powers of hell (Matthew 16:18),⁸² the demon of party spirit (Luke 11:20-26),⁸³ Lucifer (Luke 10:18),⁸⁴ angels and men (Matthew 2:11-13),⁸⁵ eternal glory (Matthew 6:13),⁸⁶ eternal happiness (Matt. 25:21, 23, 34, 46), and Heaven (Matthew 6:10; 4:17).⁸⁷

CONCLUSION

As we conclude this introductory summary of Washington’s understanding of Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels, we should first recognize that his biblical literacy encompasses the entire Bible, not just the Gospel teachings we have presented here. We will consider Washington’s Bible literacy in a later chapter on Washington and the Bible. Perhaps in light of the evidence already offered, it is no longer so far-fetched to accept the view of earlier scholars that claimed that Washington was a serious student of the Bible. Be that as it may, it appears that Washington knew his Bible far better than Paul Boller knew Washington’s use of the Bible, given that Boller claimed that Washington never referred to the Bible except “for whimsy.”

The point of all of this is that Washington’s written words about Jesus, his reverential use of his name and titles of honor, as well as careful use of his teaching clearly distance Washington from any legitimate possibility of identifying him as a Deist. Also significant is his life-long worship in an explicitly Trinitarian Christian setting with a Christologically orthodox prayer book. Scholars’ assumptions and inferences cannot overturn these explicit statements. We require written proof to show that Washington, the man of honesty and candor, did not really mean what he said when he wrote in 1779, “You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are.”

FOUR

Washington’s Virginia and The Anglican Mission to the Indians

“I retire from the Chair of government . . . I leave you with undefiled hands, an uncorrupted heart, and with ardent vows to heaven for the welfare and happiness of that country in which I and my forefathers to the third or fourth progenitor drew our first breath.”

George Washington, 1796

¹

George Washington was born in 1732 into a Virginia that was British, Anglican, wary of Indians, dependent upon slaves, and aware that some of her citizens may have come to the New World due to a breach of the common law, or to escape the power of the crown. The concerns that molded the new civilization helped form the character of Washington. To understand Washington, we must have a working knowledge of colonial Virginia.

In the last part of the sixteenth century, while Elizabeth sat on the throne, emissaries of the Virgin Queen began the colonization of the New World and named the territory “Virginia” in her honor. The first two attempts (including the “Lost Colony of 1587”) failed, presumably because of violent interactions with the Native Americans. The first English settlement in Virginia to survive began in 1607. The first permanent city of the colony was named Jamestown for the reigning monarch, King James, whose legacy lives on in the popular name for the authorized version of the English Bible, the King James Version (KJV), published in 1611. Thus it is no accident that the King’s Church, the Anglican Church, came with the settlers to “The Old Dominion.”

One of the first acts of the settlers of Jamestown when they landed in Virginia in 1607 was to erect a wooden cross on the shore at Cape Henry, giving symbolic expression to the Virginia Charter of 1606.² It declared that one of the reasons for coming to America was to spread the Christian faith to the Indians—that is, to those who “as yet live in Darkness.” Furthermore, words given to the settlers as they departed England for the New World reminded them of the necessity of God’s providential care, declaring “every plantation which our heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted out.”³

Virginia’s first governing body was called the House of Burgesses, which was under the superior rule of the King and his ministers in London. As a spiritual community, Virginia observed the established Church of the motherland, which meant that church and state were intimately connected.

In 1611, the year of the publishing of the King James Version of the Bible, the colonists wrote one of America’s first civil documents, the Third Charter of Virginia and in 1619, the first representative assembly in America was held in the church of Jamestown. Thus, to the original settlers of Virginia, there was a visible and unmistakable link between church and state. Reverend Richard Bucke led the House of Burgesses in prayer that God would guide and sanctify their proceedings to his own glory and the good of the plantation. They issued laws requiring church attendance, believing that men’s affairs could not prosper where God’s service was neglected. In 1619, they also observed the first American Day of Thanksgiving.⁴

THE CHALLENGES FACING VIRGINIA’S FIRST CHURCH AND CLERGYMEN

The Anglican faith, following the ancient tradition of the Roman Catholic Church, was governed by a hierarchy of Bishops. But the Anglican Church in Virginia eventually became relatively independent, in comparison to the English mother church, since there were no Bishops in the new world to oversee the church’s growth and development. After years without the oversight and concern of a caring Episcopate, many pulpits were empty. By the time of George Washington’s birth, spiritual care usually fell to the laity⁵ of the parish since many churches were cared for by a single traveling curate who had to first travel to England to receive “holy orders” from the hands of the Bishop of London.⁶

Some Virginian Anglican priests had initially been professionals, such as physicians and lawyers, who were serving as vestrymen and churchwardens and were persuaded by the laity to take up the clerical vocation due to the severe ecclesiastical shortfall. In the early years of the colony, the pay was so low for a Virginia clergyman that daughters from upper class English families were rarely allowed to marry an Anglican priest who was planning to minister in the New World.⁷ Although some clergymen were wealthy Virginians who entered ministry as a second career, ministers were more likely to be poor, single, and of less than exemplary piety, and often those who could not find a call in England.⁸ Eventually the compensation for the clergy improved, but if the colonial clergymen’s gifts were perhaps not as strong as their English counterparts, the law of supply and demand and the law of the King that guaranteed and established their religious positions had a tendency to make them largely unaccountable.⁹ Since the cash crop for the colony and the means of payment for the clergy was tobacco, tobacco production was destined to be the primary emphasis in Virginia.¹⁰

TOBACCO—VIRGINIA’S MEANS OF EXCHANGE

As an undeveloped culture, early Virginia lacked many of the foundations of a civilized culture, including roads and currency. The settlers lived close to the land and depended upon the rivers as their only sure roads to the city of Jamestown and to the international markets across the sea. And insomuch as money is a means of exchange, tobacco was, in effect, the money for colonial Virginia for much of its existence. To farmers and planters, tobacco was the cash crop that paid the clergy and the many other bills for goods that had to be imported from the mother country. Indeed, George Washington, like most Virginia planters, paid for his pastor’s salary in tobacco.¹¹

What the English government and investors expected from their colony in America was a strong return for their past investments, accompanied by an unquestioning obedience. This is amply illustrated by the well-known story of Reverend James Blair’s efforts to obtain an endowment for his proposed college in Virginia (a forerunner to William and Mary which never materialized). He obtained the charter and a grant of 2,000 British pounds. Sir Edward Seymour, one of the leading figures of Virginian politics, objected to the grant. Reverend Blair told Commissary Seymour that the college was designed to educate ministers and that people in Virginia had souls to be saved as well as people in England. In one of the more striking historical disagreements between a civil and a religious leader, Seymour intoned: “Souls! Damn your souls! Make tobacco.”¹²

INDIANS, CONVICTS, AND SLAVES

By the time George Washington was out surveying the wilderness tracts of land for Lord Fairfax, the proprietor of the Northern Neck’s vast expanse, the Indians were no longer an immediate menace, since they had been driven far back into the forests by the previous generations of armed colonists. The Native Americans were still, however, the masters of the vast unsurveyed lands of the upper reaches of the rivers that extended into the Virginian frontier, which at that time included parts of Maryland and Western Pennsylvania. As a young man, George Washington engaged in a surveying expedition into this frontier. He kept a journal of this expedition, and he noted his impressions of some of their customs, such as the Indians’ strange way of dancing.¹³

Adding to the woes of the already spiritually impoverished Virginia, King James decided to turn the Colony into a destination for English convicts. One-hundred convicts arrived in America in 1619, the first of many such shipments. (Even a captain that sailed one of George Washington’s commercial ships had commanded a convict ship for many years before being employed by Washington.) This commerce did not end until the Revolution closed American ports to the crown’s penal exile of English criminals. Australia’s Botany Bay would eventually become the next home for these unwanted prisoners of the crown.

In fact, Washington’s first teacher had been “bought” by George’s father and brought to America to tutor the young George. As a white English convict who had run afoul of the common law, he found a new opportunity in the colony as an indentured servant, serving simultaneously as a sexton for the church, a gravedigger for the cemetery, and a teacher of a small field school. Soon thereafter, also in 1619, a Dutch vessel delivered to Jamestown the first shipload of slaves ever brought to American shores. Indeed, to make tobacco in large enough quantities to satisfy the needs and the quotas from markets in England, the Virginia nobility—the true gentlemen farmers—became accustomed to building and maintaining their vast plantations by the utilization of great numbers of slaves, who cared not only for their masters’ fields, but also for their bodies, their horses, their houses, and their children. In fact, one of George Washington’s closest friends was William “Billy” Lee, “my Mulatto man William (calling himself William Lee).”¹⁴ In his will, Washington emancipated Billy and provided him with a lifetime annuity.¹⁵

Virginia’s culture and its laws were thus a reflection of its unique origins as the first English settlement in the new world. From 1607 on, the interpenetration of the English state, the Anglican Church, the farm, the Indian, the slave and the convict continued. There needed to be laws for the church, the state, and the soldier.

VIRGINIA’S DIVINE, MARTIAL, AND MORAL LAW

As we have already seen, the beginning of the Episcopal Church of Virginia was inseparably connected with the planting of the colony. The First Charter of Virginia was written in 1606, followed by revisions in 1609 and 1611. Thus, Virginia’s code of law developed when “religion was painted upon banners” and law was “divine, martial and moral”—in the words of Bishop William Meade.¹⁶ Bishop Meade’s contemporary, B. B. Minor, put it this way, “No one can properly study, write, or appreciate Virginia history who does not largely and heartily enter into those parts relating and devoted to religion and the Church.”¹⁷ The roots of religion were planted all the more deeply, given the understanding by the colonists that it must have been God’s Providence that had allowed Virginia to survive so many close calls with extinction, due to sheer struggle with the wilderness and fierce warfare with the local aboriginal masters of the New World. This was the culture Washington’s ancestors found when they arrived in Virginia around 1657.