The need for justification before God was implied by Washington when he used phrases like “answerable to God,”⁷³ “so much to answer for,”⁷⁴ and “justifiable in the eyes of God and men.”⁷⁵ He declared, “God alone is the Judge of the Hearts of Men, and to him only in this Case, they are answerable.”⁷⁶ And men have “much to answer for,” since their judge is “the supreme Arbiter of human events.”⁷⁷ Washington warned of “the aggravated vengeance of heaven,”⁷⁸ and referenced the “torment of a mental hell,”⁷⁹ “the powers of hell,”⁸⁰ as well as the reality of “blessing and curse.”⁸¹ Washington’s view of the curse seems to include a curse after death, as suggested by Washington’s phrase “the bitterest curse this side of the grave”⁸² and his statement that “Conscience again seldom comes to a Mans aid while he is in the zenith of health, and revelling in pomp and luxury upon ill gotten spoils; it is generally the last act of his life and comes too late to be of much service to others here, or to himself hereafter.”⁸³

Thus, Washington and the leaders of the new nation believed that men needed “with united Hearts and Voice unfeignedly [to] confess their Sins before God, and supplicate the all wise and merciful disposer of events,”⁸⁴ and “to implore the Lord, and Giver of all victory, to pardon our manifold sins and wickedness’s.”⁸⁵ And “that he would in mercy look down upon us, pardon our sins and receive us into his favor....”⁸⁶

In view of God’s great Providential care for the nation, Washington asserted that faith and gratitude were necessary, “The Hand of Providence has been so conspicuous in all this that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations...”⁸⁷ Washington joyfully wrote to his friend Marquis de Lafayette, drawing on their shared understanding of Christian teaching on sin and forgiveness: “I stand before you as a Culprit: but to repent & be forgiven are the precepts of Heaven: I do the former, do you practice the latter, and it will be participation of a divine attribute.”⁸⁸

The Gospel message was so well understood that even soldiers utilized words such as “atonement,”⁸⁹ “forgiveness,”⁹⁰ and “pardon”⁹¹ to describe their work. So these truths called for men to become “Christian soldiers,”⁹² to be “more of a man and of a Christian,”⁹³ and to seek one’s highest glory by adding to their character “the more distinguished character of Christian.”⁹⁴ The work of the “Holy Spirit”⁹⁵ was recognized and so Washington could speak of “all the workings of the spirit within,”⁹⁶ “a Christian-like spirit,”⁹⁷ “a true Christian Spirit,”⁹⁸ and the “pure spirit of Christianity,”⁹⁹ as well as praying that God would grant “spirit” to his army.¹⁰⁰ Thus, there was the duty to be a “true Christian,”¹⁰¹ whose life was manifested not in “profligate morals, etc.,”¹⁰² but in “true piety.”¹⁰³ Christians and Christianity were the friends of government in Washington’s mind: “While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support.”¹⁰⁴

Christians were to be active in the support of the government since “true religion affords to government its surest support,”¹⁰⁵ and “religion and morality are indispensable supports for political happiness.”¹⁰⁶ But because “the path of true piety is so plain,”¹⁰⁷ no direction for religion per se was provided in the “Magna-Charta” or Constitution of America.¹⁰⁸ So as the Christian seeks to live with the desire to be “justifiable in the eyes of God and man,”¹⁰⁹ he seeks a “glorious immortality,”¹¹⁰ a “future happiness,”¹¹¹ and “happiness hereafter”¹¹² in “the world of spirits,”¹¹³ “the other world.”¹¹⁴ He knows there is a promised millennium,¹¹⁵ a last trump,¹¹⁶ and that when men die, they are facing a “life eternal.”¹¹⁷ He can sooth his conscience by awaiting the approbation of the Supreme Being.¹¹⁸

CONCLUSION

This summation of Washington’s theology is the Christian Gospel pure and simple. Washington’s expressed beliefs presented here are utterly inconsistent with Deism. Even if the arrangement of Washington’s theological themes assembled here is deficient, the sheer weight of the volume of the Gospel concepts affirmed by Washington and expressed in his own words militate against any claim of Washington’s Deism. The evidence is clear; Washington spoke with consistency and conviction in terms of the Christian Gospel. He could not have been a Deist. There is not a word of unbelief in the Christian faith in the entire body of Washington’s writings. The claim for Washington’s Deism is a myth without a single word of substantiation.

THIRTY TWO

George Washington and Forgiveness:

A Consideration of the Historicity of Two Classic Washington Anecdotes on Forgiveness

“Your resolution to abandon the ideas which were therein expressed, are sincere. I shall not only heartily forgive, but will forget also, and bury in oblivion all that has passed.”

George Washington, 1797

¹

Washington practiced what Christianity affirms—that those who repent should be forgiven. He wrote to his adopted grandson, George Washington Parke Custis: “Your resolution to abandon the ideas which were therein expressed, are sincere, I shall not only heartily forgive, but will forget also, and bury in oblivion all that has passed.”² One of Washington’s criticisms of King George was that he could neither forget nor forgive.³

Washington was magnanimous in showing forgiveness to those who had hurt him during the war. His childhood friend, Bryan Fairfax, turned Tory. Afterwards, George forgave him. Reverend Jacob Duché also rejected the patriot cause, even though he had led the first Congress in a moving prayer (September 7, 1774). Later, Washington forgave him. Reverend Jonathan Boucher, who was the tutor of Washington’s stepchildren, verbally attacked Washington, yet Washington forgave him. All of these made peace with Washington and he with them after the War.⁴

WASHINGTON SEEKS FORGIVENESS

An experience in his own life perhaps helped him learn to forgive. There seems to have been a moment in time when Washington needed to seek forgiveness and reconcile with a man with whom he had had a fight. Although the account has often been disputed, Washington scholar John Corbin has argued that it is authentic.⁵ Washington biographer Parson Mason Weems’ account puts it as follows:

In 1754, and the 22d year of his age...[Washington] was stationed at Alexandria with his regiment, the only one in the colony, and of which he was colonel. There happened at this time to be an election in Alexandria for members of assembly, and the contest ran high between colonel George Fairfax, and Mr. Elzey. Washington was the warm friend of Fairfax, and a Mr. Payne headed the friends of Elzey. A dispute happening to take place in the courthouse-yard, Washington, a thing very uncommon, said something that offended Payne; whereupon the little gentleman who, though but a cub in size, was the old lion in heart, raised his sturdy hickory, and, at a single blow, brought our hero to the ground. Several of Washington’s officers being present, whipped out their cold irons in an instant, and it was believed that there would have been murder off-hand. To make bad worse, his regiment, hearing how he had been treated, bolted out from their barracks, with every man his weapon in his hand, threatening dreadful vengeance on those who had dared to knock down their beloved colonel. Happily for Mr. Payne and his party, Washington recovered, time enough to go out and meet his enraged soldiers; and, after thanking them for this expression of their love, and assuring them that he was not hurt in the least, he begged them, as they loved him or their duty, to return peaceably to their barracks. As for himself, he went to his room, generously chastising his imprudence, which had this struck up a spark, that had like to have thrown the whole town into a flame. Finding on mature reflection, that he had been the aggressor, he resolved to make Mr. Payne honourable reparation, by asking his pardon on the morrow! No sooner had he made this noble resolution, than recovering that delicious gaiety which accompanies good purposes in a virtuous mind, he went to a ball that night, and behaved as pleasantly as though nothing had happened! Glorious proof that great souls, like great ships, are not affected by those little puffs which would overset feeble minds with passion, or sink them with spleen!

The next day he went to a tavern, and wrote a polite note to Mr. Payne, whom he requested to meet him. Mr. Payne took it for a challenge, and repaired to the tavern not without expecting to see a pair of pistols produced. But what was his surprise on entering the chamber, to see a decanter of wine and glasses on the table! Washington arose, and in a very friendly manner met him, and gave him his hand. “Mr. Payne,” said he “to err is nature; to rectify error is glory; I find I was wrong yesterday, but wish to be right to-day. You have had some satisfaction; and if you think that sufficient here’s my hand, let us be friends.”⁶

Perhaps this episode, wherein Washington needed forgiveness, was a factor in his development as a leader known for clemency.⁷ Even the records from Martha Washington’s correspondence attest to Washington’s forgiving spirit as a military officer.⁸

FORGIVENESS OF AN ENEMY AT VALLEY FORGE: REVEREND PETER MILLER’S APPEAL FOR THE LIFE OF MICHAEL WIDMAN BEFORE GENERAL WASHINGTON

A classic story from Valley Forge tells of a moment when the Christian grace of forgiving one’s enemy became a reality under the command of General Washington. Washington, as we have seen, was given to mercy, pardon, and forgiveness of his army, when deemed appropriate.

James Baldwin in An American Book of Golden Deeds, tells the story:

While encamped at Valley Forge one day, a Tory who was well known in the neighborhood was captured and brought into camp. His name was Michael Widman, and he was accused of having carried aid and information to the British in Philadelphia. He was taken to West Chester and there tried by court-martial. It was proved that he was a very dangerous man and that he had more than once attempted to do great harm to the American army. He was pronounced guilty of being a spy and sentenced to be hanged. On the evening of the day before that set for the execution, a strange old man appeared at Valley Forge. He was a small man with long, snow-white hair falling over his shoulders. His face, although full of kindliness, was sad-looking and thoughtful; his eyes, which were bright and sharp, were upon the ground and lifted only when he was speaking. . . .

His name was announced.

“Peter Miller?” said Washington. “Certainly. Show him in at once.”

“General Washington, I have come to ask a great favor of you,” he said, in his usual kindly tones.

“I shall be glad to grant you almost anything,” said Washington, “for we surely are indebted to you for many favors. Tell me what it is.”

“I hear,” said Peter, “that Michael Widman has been found guilty of treason and that he is to be hanged at Turk’s Head to-morrow. I have come to ask you to pardon him.”

Washington started back, and a cloud came over his face.

“That is impossible,” he said. “Widman is a bad man. He has done all in his power to betray us. He has even offered to join the British and aid in destroying us. In these times we can not be lenient with traitors; and for that reason I cannot pardon your friend.”

“Friend!” cried Peter. “Why, he is no friend of mine. He is my bitterest enemy. He has persecuted me for years. He has even beaten me and spit in my face, knowing full well that I would not strike back. Michael Widman is no friend of mine.”

Washington was puzzled. “And still you wish me to pardon him?” he asked.

“I do,” answered Peter. “I ask it of you as a great personal favor.”

“Tell me,” said Washington, with hesitating voice,” why is it that you thus ask the pardon of your worst enemy?”

“I ask it because Jesus did as much for me,” was the old man’s brief answer.

Washington turned away and went into another room. Soon he returned with a paper on which was written the pardon of Michael Widman.

“My dear friend,” he said, as he placed it in the old man’s hand, “I thank you for this example of Christian charity.”⁹

E. Gordon Alderfer relates the story this way:

That Peter Miller was a forgiving man is demonstrated by the story of one of his appeals for clemency. Michael Widman, then tavern keeper at what later became the famous Eagle Hotel in Ephrata village, had on several occasions bedeviled the nonresistant prior, hitting him soundly on one occasion and spitting in his face on another. Michael was alleged to be one of the richest Tories in Lancaster County. He got caught expressing his political opinions, was arrested for treason, escaped through a window of his tavern, and fled to Bethania in Ephrata, where he hid. He was soon captured again and was sentenced to be hanged. Miller at once started off on foot to see his friend General Washington at Valley Forge, a grueling journey. The General at first refused to intercede, but when he discovered that his friend had walked sixty miles through snow on behalf of his worst enemy, he relented and granted a pardon. Miller than walked another fifteen miles with the pardon note to West Chester, arriving, it is said, just in time to see Widman being led to the scaffold. The Tory allegedly saw the prior arrive and insensible to the ways of the nonresistant Christian, assumed he had come from Ephrata to gloat. The pardon was pronounced in the nick of time, and Widman was released. It is said that the two men walked back to Ephrata together, Widman no doubt a chastened man. All of the Tory’s property was confiscated and sold at auction by orders of the new government. Widman’s political views did not change; he was jailed again, won a release, and thereafter disappeared in the west.¹⁰

A STORY FULL OF HOLES?

But not everyone, of course, is prepared to accept this story as historically valid. Author and Washington biographer Douglas Harper writes, “The story as it stands is full of holes, Why would Washington in Valley Forge send an Ephrata man to be hanged in West Chester, which was then a backwater crossroads with just a school and a tavern? There certainly never was any block house there, and except in the week after the Battle of the Brandywine there was no significant presence of American troops in the region. And why would the many detailed observers of the early West Chester scene (Joseph Townsend, Joseph J. Lewis, William Darlington, Philip Sharpless, etc.), make no mention of such a dramatic event as a near-hanging? Further, why would Washington, as commander in chief attempt to execute a private citizen for a crime that was handled by the civil authorities of the state, and why would those authorities make no complaint, or even mention of the event? The narrative makes it clear that Widman was a private citizen, not a British spy, at the time. And why, if Washington was touched enough to reverse himself and grant a pardon, was he not also touched enough to lend Miller a horse to get him to Turk’s Head before the execution? So what are the facts? There may not be enough of them to consign the story to fiction, but there are enough to put it in serious doubt....”¹¹

The background of Peter Miller is important to understand in order to appreciate the story of his intercession on behalf of Michael Widman. Miller had come from Germany, having been trained in the Reformed tradition. When he arrived in America, he was ordained in the Presbyterian Church. He went to the Cocalico-Tuplehocken area (Berks County, Pennsylvania) to serve. While there he encountered the German Seventh Day Baptists, who had started the Ephrata Cloister—what amounted to a Protestant monastery.

The leader, Conrad Beisel, ultimately persuaded Miller to join the “Dunkers,” which included not only leaving his Reformed pastorate, but becoming a monk, taking a vow of celibacy, receiving believer’s baptism, and adopting the pacifist life of the cloister.

To further appreciate the elements of the historicity of the Miller-Widman story, we must go back earlier into the context of the French and Indian War.¹² Braddock’s defeat resulted in the unopposed French and Indian raids on the English settlements. Col. Washington had to defend 350 miles of wilderness with little success against the Indians, resulting in constant reports of carnage and slaughter. The need for a safe haven became critical, which impacted the Ephrata community.

Reverend Peter Miller saw the French and Indian War as a possible end time scenario, or at least a season of imminent persecution. To prepare his people for such, he translated into German the massive Dutch work, Martyr’s Mirror, an Anabaptist equivalent of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. When he published it, it became the largest and lengthiest publishing project in colonial America—all accomplished on the frontier at Bethlehem-Ephrata. The entire project, from making paper, translating, printing, etc., was done by Miller and his fellow religionists. Tradition records that Miller only slept hours per night for months until the project was complete. The sheer magnitude of the project, as well as the quality of its finished product, prompted a high admiration for Miller by Philadelphia printer, Benjamin Franklin.