Dwight’s treatise is significant for it gives expression to the Christian enlightenment, or the cooperation of faith and reason, thereby providing an alternative to the secular wing of the enlightenment that expressed itself in Deism. Dwight explains, “That philosophy only, which is opposed to Christianity, is the subject of the following observations.”18
Further, Dwight excludes the philosopher John Locke from the ranks of the Deists. Dwight is clear that Locke is a Christian:19
Infidels have been ingenious men; that some of them have been learned men; and that a few of them have been great men. Hume, Tindal, and a few others, have been distinguished for superior strength of mind, Bolingbroke for eloquence of the pen, Voltaire for brilliancy of imagination, and various others for respectable talents of different kinds. But I am wholly unable to form a list of Infidels, which can, without extreme disadvangage, be compared with the two Bacons, Erasmus, Cumberland, Stillingfleet, Grotius, Locke, Butler, Newton, Boyle, Berkeley, Milton, Johnson, etc. In no walk of genius, in no path of knowledge can Infidels support and claim to superiority, or equality with Christians.20
Thus, argues Timothy Dwight: Isaac Newton, John Locke, Hugo Grotius, John Milton, Robert Boyle were first-rate geniuses and believers in Jesus—whereas, Deists were lesser rate geniuses.
THE THEOLOGY OF THE DEISTS VS. WASHINGTON’S THEOLOGY
Dwight next highlights the theological doctrines of the Deists to show in what ways they departed from historic Christian thought. Here we will summarize the thinking and representative doctrines of some of the leading philosophers considered by Dwight, followed by a summary of a theological statement from Washington’s writings to show that he disagreed with the Deists at every point.
Lord Herbert believed that all “Revealed Religion” (viz. Christianity) was “absolutely uncertain, and of little or no use.” Washington believed that the pursuit of the Christian character should be our “highest glory.”21
Thomas Hobbes’ concept was that man was a “mere machine,” and that the soul was “material and mortal.” In contrast, Washington looked forward to a “glorious immortality.”22
Charles Blount declared that divine revelation was unsupported because men could not agree on the truth of it. Washington declared that heaven had given the “treasures of knowledge” to the citizens of America.23
Lord Shaftesbury believed that the scriptures were an invention and miracles “ridiculous” and inconsequential. Washington spoke of the “word of God”24 and found the scriptures to be so trustworthy that he referred to “the proof of holy writ” to confirm the truth of his words.25
Robert Collins saw the prophets as “fortunetellers” and thus, Christianity was based on a false foundation. Washington wrote of the veracity of Christianity in terms of “true religion,” “true piety,” and “a true Christian.”26
William Tindal asserted that the scriptures were contradictory, confusing, and incomprehensible. Washington found the scriptures to contain the eternal rules of order and right, which heaven itself has ordained,27 and the path of faith “so plain.”28
Thomas Chubb declared that God was indifferent, prayer improper, Christ’s life and teachings ridiculous and useless, the apostles imposters, and their teaching unworthy. Washington wrote of “good Providence,”29 and he prayed faithfully as he “earnestly emplored” the “divine Being, in whose hands are all human events.”30 He called on America to imitate “the Divine Author of our Blessed Religion.”31
David Hume, in a notably perverse logic, conceived that what is seen as God’s “perfection,” may in reality be defects, and his truly excellent nature is one of malice, folly, and injustice. Washington wrote consistently about the goodness of Providence, that “all wise and merciful disposer of events.”32
Lord Bolingbroke acknowledged providences, yet argued there was no foundation for belief in them. God was ultimately unconcerned with man, and there would be no final judgment.”33 Washington attested to the goodness of Providence, “which will never fail to take care of his Children,” and recognized the wrath of God, “the aggravated vengeance of Heaven.”34
The clear conclusion from this survey is that Washington’s doctrines stood in utter contrast from each of these representative Deists at every point. He cannot be classified as a Deist.
THE ETHICS OF THE DEISTS VS. WASHINGTON’S ETHICS
The sermon sent to George Washington by young Zechariah Lewis that was written by President Timothy Dwight not only criticized the theology of Deism, but also the ethics of Deism as well. A simple perusal of the Deist philosophers’ ethics summarized by Dwight, the president of Yale, will show that they were as alien to Washington’s personal values as rape, plunder, and atrocity were to the values of his army. As far as we can find, the issue of the ethics of Deism in the debate over Washington’s religion has not been raised until now.
As we consider the vast chasm that emerges when Washington’s ethics and the ethics of the Deists are compared, even the most strenuous advocate of Washington’s Deism would have to admit that it is ludicrous to think that any of these beliefs reflect Washington’s ethics. Washington’s ethical values were distinctively Christian. So let us again compare Washington with the Deist writers identified by President Dwight.
Lord Herbert claimed that men were not accountable for their sinful actions. Washington, however, repeatedly warned his men to avoid vice and immorality,35 and called them to “unfeignedly confess their Sins before God, and supplicate the all wise and merciful disposer of events.”36
Hobbes espoused that civil law was the only true law by which men could be judged, and where civil law lapsed, men were to judge for themselves right from wrong. Washington appealed to the eternal rules of order ordained by heaven as the truest standard of morality.37
Lord Shaftesbury held that there was no true virtue, only virtue motivated by the mercenary concerns of final judgment.38 Washington looked forward to “the benediction of Heaven,”39 and “the future reward of good and faithful Servants.”40 He believed that the response to the goodness of Providence was true gratitude and virtue, and that he must be “worse than an infidel,”41 that lacks faith, and “the man must be bad indeed who can look upon the events of the American Revolution without feeling the warmest gratitude towards the great Author of the Universe.”42
Tindal asserted that judgment is conditional upon circumstances, and men are to consider the circumstances for each offence in order to pass judgment. Washington recognized the need to seek God’s forgiveness for man’s “manifold sins and wickedness.”43
Chubb taught that there would be no ultimate judgment for impiety, ingratitude to God, or sinful behavior, but only for “injuries to the public.” Washington warned of the consequences of impiety44 and considered ingratitude to God a “black and detestable” sin.45
Hume’s reverse logic claimed that self-aggrandizing, living only for self, and even suicide, were virtuous acts worthy of pursuit. Washington wrote often of self-denial,46 the value of humility,47 and sought to avoid anything which might lead one to suicide.
Lord Bolingbroke also affirmed that gratifying the flesh was the chief end of man, and thus adultry and polygamy were worthy pursuits.”48 Washington insisted his men avoid lewdness,49 sexual immorality, and pursue moral purity.51
The ethical tenets of Deism, as here summarized by President Dwight, were viewed with horror in the American culture of Washington’s day. Beyond the Deist’s writings, such ethical teaching began to be openly advocated only at the arrival of the sexual revolution in the mid-twentieth century, and only became culturally normative with the expressive individualism of post-modernity. Yet the precursors for these views were the Deists of Washington’s day. Washington was not one of the forerunners of the sexual revolution, precisely because he was not a Deist.
LIAR, LORD, OR LUNATIC? WASHINGTON’S ENDORSEMENT OF TWO SERMONS
It is clear that Deism was making a major impact on early America. Preachers gave sermons with challenges like the following:
If we regard as we ought, our Master’s interest; if we feel that benevolence to our fellow-men, which the Gospel dictates, and that compassion to immortal Souls, perishing in their sins which it inspires, we shall be led to pursue every possible method, in order to make a determined opposition to the flood of infidelity, which is increasing with such rapidity.
But of all methods of opposing infidelity, none we believe is so efficacious as a holy life. To live the life of the Righteous, to exhibit in our daily deportment, a specimen of the christian virtues, is a constant practical defence of the Gospel. It shows the power of divine grace on the heart, and is a convincing proof, of the superlative excellency of Christianity. While we neglect no proper mean of defending our cause, let us be careful to set before unbelievers, this striking evidence in favour of our divine Master. Let our lives convince every beholder, that Religion is an undoubted reality. Let them see in our practice, that is inconceivably the most benevolent, and humane system, ever revealed to man; and that our belief of it is cordial and unshaken. This argument will certainly carry conviction home to their consciences; and without it no other defence will be productive of lasting benefit.52
One could be sure that a Deist like Thomas Paine would have to smile at the success of his beliefs and also disagree very deeply with a clergyman who sought to stop the advance of his views. Clearly, it would be wonderful if we had known what George Washington thought about a sermon like this. If he disagreed, clearly he would have been in the Deist camp. And if he found the doctrine sound, he would have to have been a Christian. The only other alternative is that Washington said something that he didn’t believe, which runs contrary to all that we know about his commitment to character and personal integrity. Well, we now can answer the question of what Washington thought of this sermon, because he wrote a letter about it and declared his view.
At first blush, it may seem strange to raise the issue of sermons that Washington had read and endorsed at this point in our study. An argument for Washington’s Christianity based on the mere fact that he possessed Christian sermons would not be conclusive by any standard of historical evaluation. Moreover, Professor Boller claims that what we can determine about Washington’s attitudes toward the doctrinal content of any of the sermons that he possessed leaves us in a state of uncertainty anyway:
In only two instances did Washington express his opinion on the content of sermons which had been forwarded to him. In August 1797, when he received a collection of sermons from Reverend Zechariah Lewis, twenty-four-year-old tutor at Yale College, he wrote to say: The doctrine in them is sound, and does credit to the author.” Unfortunately, we do not know whose sermons they were (they were not Lewis’, for the young tutor had published nothing at this time), and consequently we have no way of knowing what the doctrine was that Washington considered “sound.”53
Our research shows that Boller is wrong. The letter from Washington to Zechariah Lewis was from Mount Vernon on August 14, 1797. Washington wrote, “For the Sermons you had the goodness to send me I pray you to accept my thanks. The doctrine in them is sound, and does credit to the Author.”
Professor Boller has seemingly done the necessary scholarly work to establish his point. This is seen, for example, when he assures us that young Lewis had not written anything at the time this letter was written. From this, it is easy to assume that he has also established that we really “do not know whose sermons they were ... and consequently we have no way of knowing what the doctrine was that Washington considered “sound.” Should we trust Boller here? We do not think so.
Instead, we should find the letter that Zechariah Lewis wrote to Washington to see if it gives us any clues. Fortunately, for our purposes, his letter is extant. We do not know why Professor Boller did not consult this letter. If he had, he would have discovered that we can clearly establish “whose sermons they were.” Zechariah Lewis’, July 17, 1797, letter from Yale College in New Haven says:
Permit me, Sir, to beg your acceptance of the two Sermons, lately preached by my Father, which accompany this letter. The political sentiments contained in the one, which was preached before the Gove[r]nor & Legislature of Connecticut, accorded with the feelings of a very crowded assembly; & appears to be the prevailing sentiments of this State. This is the only apology I offer for troubling you with the Sermon. I am Sir, with the highest affectation & respect for yourself & family Your much Obliged & very Obedt Servt. Zechariah Lewis.
As we note the details of the letter, we discover several facts. There were “two sermons.” They were “lately preached.” They were preached by Reverend Zechariah Lewis’ “Father.” One clearly was a “political” sermon, preached “before the Governor.”
The name of Zechariah Lewis’ father was Isaac Lewis. When we consult the Evans Collection of Early American Imprints, we discover that there were three published sermons by Reverend Isaac Lewis. Two were preached relatively close together, satisfying the clue in the phrase “lately preached.” The political sermon is easy to identify: “The Political Advantages of Godliness. A Sermon, preached before His Excellency the Governor, and the honorable Legislature of the State of Connecticut, convened at Hartford on the Anniversary Election” preached May 11, 1797.54
