When the Reverend Dr. William Smith preached his Masonic sermon on December 28, 1779, a sermon that Washington also had in his collection, he declared that, in effect, Masonry was a form of non-denominational Christianity. He wrote,
Looking far beyond the little distinctions of sect or party (by which too many seek to know, and be known by, each other) we should labor to imitate the great Creator, in regarding those of every Nation Religion, and tongue, who “fear Him, and work righteousness.”
Such conduct becomes those who profess to believe that when our Master Christ shall come again to reward his faithful workmen and servants; he will not ask whether we were of Luther or of Calvin? Where we prayed to him in white, black, or grey; in purple, or in rags; in fine linen, or in sackcloth; in a woolen frock, or peradventure in a Leather-Apron? Whatever is considered as most convenient, most in character most for edification, and infringes least on Spiritual liberty, will be admitted as good in this case.
But although we may believe that none of these things will be asked in that great day; let us remember that it will be assuredly asked—were we of CHRIST JESUS? “Did we pray to him with the Spirit and with the understanding?” Had we the true Marks of his Gospel in our lives? Were we “meek and lowly of heart?” did we nail our rebellious affections to his Cross, and strive to subdue our spirits to the Rule of his Spirit? But above all, it will be asked us— Were we clothed with the Wedding-garment of love? Did we recognize our HEAVENLY MASTER in the Sufferings of those whom he died to save? Did we, for his sake, open our souls wide, to the cries of HIS DISTRESSED POOR? “When they were hungry, did we give them meat? When thirsty, did we give them drink? When strangers, did we take them in? When naked, did we clothe them? When sick, did we visit them? When in prison, did we come unto them,” with Comfort and Relief?16
And perhaps most tellingly, what do we do with the fact that one of Washington’s Masonic brothers was none other than the itinerant Parson Mason Weems?17 Certainly his entry into the Masons did not destroy his Anglican faith. Clearly, his participation in the craft did not end his Christianity, nor his participation in Communion.
We are not suggesting that all Masons were or are Christians. In fact, the history of the Masonic Order shows that it is Christianity’s inherent power that Christianizes the Masonic Order.18 Nor are we encouraging Christians to become Masons.19 What we are saying is that the evidence from Washington’s day shows that the Masonic Order was anti-Deist and openly Christian and committed to scripture. Therefore, Washington’s membership in the Masonic Order of his day is much more a proof of his Christianity than of his alleged Deism.20 Further, his membership in the Masonic Order also supports the evidence that shows that Washington believed in immortality.
HOW ACTIVE A MASON WAS WASHINGTON IN LATER LIFE?
The evidence from Washington’s own pen seems to point to the idea that Washington in later life was less active in Masonry than one would expect. If we are to take Washington literally, he went only once or twice to the Masonic lodge in thirty years of his adult life. The Reverend G.W. Snyder wrote to Washington on September 25, 1798, sending a book he had read entitled, Proofs of a Conspiracy, by John Robison. The book argued that the Illuminati, a subversive organization that was anti-religion and anti-government, had penetrated America and had taken refuge in the Masonic fraternities of America.
Washington responded that he had been so busy that he was not aware of this book until Reverend Snyder sent it to him. In fact, his “busy-ness” had kept him away from most Masonic meetings. Furthermore, Washington notes that, to his knowledge, the Illuminati had not made great inroads into American Masonry:
I have heard much of the nefarious, and dangerous plan, and doctrines of the Illuminati, but never saw the Book until you were pleased to send it to me. The same causes which have prevented my acknowledging the receipt of your letter have prevented my reading the Book, hitherto; namely, the multiplicity of matters which pressed upon me before, and the debilitated state in which I was left after, a severe fever had been removed. And which allows me to add little more now, than thanks for your kind wishes and favourable sentiments, except to correct an error you have run into, of my Presiding over the English lodges in this Country. The fact is, I preside over none, nor have I been in one more than once or twice, within the last thirty years. I believe notwithstanding, that none of the Lodges in this Country are contaminated with the principles ascribed to the Society of the Illuminati.22
Apparently, Washington’s active years in the Masonic Order, by his own admission, were from 1752 (the year he joined the Masonic Order at twenty years old) to 1768, the date thirty years back from when Washington wrote to Reverend Snyder in 1798. So at about the age of thirty-six or so, he stopped regular attendance at the Masonic Lodge. His active Masonic years were from the start of his military career to about the start of his disagreement with the British government’s efforts to raise money in the colonies through means such as the Stamp Act. These were also years in which he was highly active as a vestryman and church warden.
Washington’s letter reveals that in the later years of his life, while he continued to be a member of the Masons, he had not been a regular attendee. Thus, his activities thereafter were essentially symbolic and ceremonial. But Washington’s letter also shows us that the Masons, of which he was a part during his active years, were not anti-religious, like the Deists. Washington knew of the “nefarious and dangerous plan and doctrines of the Illuminati.” But as a member of the Masonic Fraternity, he did not believe the lodges in America had been “contaminated” by them.
So if we take Washington at his word, as he would expect us to, since he insisted that he was a man of candor and honesty, he obviously was far more active in the Christian church during the last three decades of his life than he was in the Masonic Order.
The American Masonic Order, to Washington’s knowledge, was not corrupted by the irreligion of the Illuminati—the most radical expression of French Deism. Thus, Washington’s involvement with the Masonic Order, based on his own comments, was consistent with our understanding of Washington as a Christian. The Masons were not Washington’s regular religion, nor were they against Washington’s Anglican faith.
This is why the Reverend Dr. William Smith, Episcopalian clergyman from Philadelphia, was able to have been a member and to have written the Constitution of the Order. (Again, the Constitution of the Masons declared that no Deist or “stupid Atheist” was to participate with the Masons.) This is also why the Reverend Parson Weems, Episcopalian clergyman from Washington’s neighborhood, was able to have been a member and also be an outspoken advocate of Washington’s Christian faith, even if he wrote an historically unacceptable biography of Washington.
CONCERNS FOR THE LOSS OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE MASONIC ORDER
To corroborate the Christian character of the Masonic Order in Washington’s day, we must consider two further testimonies. The first occurs in the story of Reverend Timothy Dwight, the president of Yale College. Dwight had been an officer in the American Revolution, and became one of the leaders of America’s Second Great Awakening. President Dwight, in his 1798 sermon, “The Duty of Americans at the Present Crisis,” wrote that one of the realities of America’s decline in religion was that the Masonic Order was losing its original purpose of friendship and fellowship and was becoming hostile to religion.
In the meantime, the Masonic societies, which had been originally instituted for convivial and friendly purposes only, were . . . made the professed scenes of debate concerning religion, morality, and government. . . The secrecy, solemnity, mysticism, and correspondence of Masonry were in this new order preserved and enhanced; while the ardor of innovation, the impatience of civil and moral restraints, and the aims against government, morals, and religion were elevated, expanded and rendered more systematical, malignant, and daring.23
Dwight’s sermon, preached on July 4, 1798, confirms the concerns of Reverend G. W. Snyder’s letter of September 25, 1798. Apparently, Washington, however, had not been aware of the relatively recent change in tone in some of the Masonic lodges, given his general non-involvement during the last years of his life.
Further substantiation that the earlier “Christian Masons” of Washington’s young adulthood were becoming less Christian during the time that Washington was no longer regularly attending the Masonic lodge is seen in the experience of Charles Thomson. Thomson was the first and only clerk of the Continental Congress. Thomson, from Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, was a remarkable classicist and biblical scholar.24 He has the distinction of being the first to translate the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) into English. Washington, who knew Thomson, actually read a portion of Thomson’s translation.25 Thomson was invited to join the Masonic Order to help keep its Christian witness alive—an invitation, however, that he did not accept:
...the Master of the Masonic Order in Baltimore ... was “determined... to unbosom [his] heart.” This man urged Thomson to become a Mason to help him bring the order (which had “deviated from the truth”) back to the “first principles” of Christianity. “I am in, you are out,” wrote the Masonic Master. “Will you—can you—deem yourself called upon to lend your aid to do much good?” Thomson stayed out.26
CONCLUSION
In the early nineteenth century, American Masonry began to experience a decided shift away from traditional Christianity. But the American Masonry of George Washington’s day considered itself to be quite compatible with Christianity.
In short, a man could be both a good Christian and a good Mason in the minds of the founders. The evidence is clear that being both a Mason and a Christian was not considered to be antithetical in the American Christian mind until the close of the eighteenth century.28 While it is a legitimate question to ask just how Christian the Masonic Order is today, for Washington in his day and in his understanding, Christianity and membership in the Masonic Order were compatible. Washington believed that both taught the Christian faith, the moral duties of loving God and neighbor, and human immortality. It is a historical misunderstanding to drive a wedge between Washington and Christianity, because Washington was a Mason as has been done by John Warwick Montgomery,29 Willard Sterne Randall30 and Paul Johnson.31
TWENTY SIX
More Objections to Washington the Christian:
Slaves, Slander, Passion, and Tripoli
“I wish from my soul that the Legislature of this State could see the policy of a gradual Abolition of Slavery; It would prevent much future mischief.”
George Washington, 1797
1
George Washington’s Sacred Fire was written to answer the objections of scholars who claim that George Washington was not a Christian. We have already considered several arguments utilized to support the claim of Washington’s Deism. In this chapter, we will consider four other important objections to Washington’s Christianity. These are:
• Washington’s ownership of slaves;
• the question of Washington’s morality, or what we might call the question of Washington “slanders,” versus the Washington “scandals”;
• Washington’s passionate temper; and
• Washington’s alleged role in the Treaty of Tripoli.
Before we begin to consider these, let’s engage the classic objector to Washington’s Christianity—Washington historian Rupert Hughes,2 a skeptical historian who wrote a generation before Professor Boller.
RUPERT HUGHES: THE PARSON WEEMS IN REVERSE OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
In 1926, only six years before the bicentennial of Washington’s birth in 1932, Rupert Hughes wrote a substantive biography of Washington. His work, in many ways, began the reassessment of Washington’s religion that led to the wholesale acceptance of the thesis that Washington was a Deist. The vast majority of the scholars who had written on Washington up to that time had accepted the view that Washington was a Christian. To put it mildly, Rupert Hughes, and others in his perspective, have successfully persuaded subsequent scholars, including Paul Boller, Jr. and Joseph Ellis.
