Washington uses it to refer to God’s nature in phrases, such as: divine will (2x), divine purposes (1x), divine goodness (1x), divine grace (1x), divine attribute [forgiveness] (1x), and divine favor (5x).
God’s work is in view when he uses the word as follows: divine benediction (3x), divine blessing (2x), divine wisdom (1x), divine source of light (1x), and in the sight of the divinity (1x).
He uses the word divine in the sense of “theology” when he employs phrases such as: questions human and divine (1x), obligations divine and human (1x), sanction of divinity (1x), and a point of divinity (1x).
He also uses the word in terms of supernatural knowledge: spirit of divination (3x), no divining (1x), and to divine (3x).
Finally, he uses the word in the sense of the worship of the church or its clergy: divine service (21x), divine worship (2x), services of a divine (1x), and that venerable divine (1x).
The point to be understood here is that Washington did not avoid the use of the word God, but instead, had a profoundly rich, theological vocabulary that suggested a vast range of the Christian faith’s beliefs and practices in regard to God. When one remembers he was a military officer, a farmer, and a politician, and not a clergyman or theologian, this is truly astonishing. Washington’s vocabulary for Deity is not that of a Deist, but of a devout eighteenth century Anglican Christian.
THE COMPATIBILITY AND CONSOLATION OF RELIGION AND REASON
Washington’s view of God and religion was definitely impacted by the eighteenth century’s renewed emphasis on human reason and philosophy. But in his mind, they were viewed as entirely complementary. Thus, we find in Washington the phrases “reason and religion,”80 “reason, religion, and philosophy,” or “religion and philosophy,”81 Washington speaks of his philosophy as that “mild philosophy”82 that is concerned with “human happiness.”83 He believed his faith had a rational basis.84 He evaluated human conduct and decisions in terms of moral certainty.85
Religion was closely connected to reason and philosophy, as can be seen from an excerpt of his letter to Martha Washington’s nephew, Burwell Bassett, April 25, 1773. After the death of Bassett’s daughter, Washington wrote to console him:
...the ways of Providence being inscrutable, and the justice of it not to be scanned by the shallow eye of humanity, nor to be counteracted by the utmost efforts of human power or wisdom, resignation, and as far as the strength of our reason and religion can carry us, a cheerful acquiescence to the Divine Will, is what we are to aim...86
Having offered comforting words, he added the assurances of a reasonable religion, namely that God knows what he is doing and that it is our job to submit cheerfully to his will.
Similarly, he wrote his friend David Humphreys, after the loss of the latter’s parents:
I condole with you on the loss of your Parents; but as they lived to a good old age you could not be unprepared for the shock, tho’ it is painful to bid an everlasting adieu to those we love, or revere. Reason, Religion and Philosophy may soften the anguish of it, but time alone can eradicate it.87
For Washington, reason and religion were not mortal enemies. In a time of grief, he counseled his great general, Henry Knox, on March 2, 1789:
But [it ]is not for man to scan the wisdom of Providence. The best he can do, is to submit to its decrees. Reason, religion and Philosophy, teaches us to do this, but ‘tis time alone that can ameliorate the pangs of humanity, and soften its woes.88
Again, to Washington, reason, religion, and philosophy were allies.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN NATURAL AND REVEALED RELIGION
Washington distinguished between “natural and revealed religion,” and could thus speak of the “blessed religion revealed in the Word of God.” The first phrase comes from his letter to Marquis de Chastellux:
For certainly it is more consonant to all the principles of reason and religion (natural and revealed) to replenish the earth with inhabitants, rather than to depopulate it by killing those already in existence.89
In a 1789 unpublished letter he had written and considered sending to Congress, Washington said:
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; and that they may even, in some instances be made subservient to the vilest of purposes.90
It is important, then, to see that Washington’s philosophy was not that of a skeptic. It was a “mild philosophy” that was not only consistent with his desire to be under his Mount Vernon “vine and fig tree,” but this philosophy was also consistent with the source of this most favorite of all quotations by Washington—the Holy Scriptures. His mild philosophy was the pursuit of happiness in God’s peace. Thus, his religion was consistent with his philosophy.
And this helps us to understand why, when Washington wants to describe something as absolutely sure or certain, he speaks of it as a “moral certainty.” Morals were from God. Whatever commandments came from God were absolutely certain. So by inference, anything that was certain was the equivalent of what was morally certain. Washington will use the phrase “moral certainty” some fifty-five times. A striking example of this is from his letter to the president of Congress, November 11, 1778:
It seems to me impolitic to enter into engagements with the Court of France for carrying on a combined operation of any kind, without a moral certainty of being able to fulfil our part, particularly if the first proposal came from us.
....So far from their being a moral certainty of our complying with our engagements, it may, in my opinion, be very safely pronounced, that if the Enemy keep possession of their present posts at New York and Rhode Island, it will be impracticable either to furnish the men, or the other necessary supplies for prosecuting the plan.91
Also indicative of Washington’s sense of the compatibility of faith and reason is his use of the phrases “rational hope” or “a rational ground of belief.” Here’s an example:
...I agree in Sentiment with the Honorable Body over whom you preside that we may entertain a rational ground of belief, that under the favor of divine providence the Freedom, Independence and happiness of America will shortly be established upon the surest foundation...92
WASHINGTON CONSIDERED RELIGIOUS BY HIS ENEMIES
George Washington was considered religious not just by his friends and colleagues, but even by his enemies. Remarkably, in the midst of the War, The London Chronicle in the September 21 to 23, 1779, issue carried an article that affirmed Washington’s religious nature. It was entitled, “Character of General Washington, by an American Gentleman now in London, who is well acquainted with him.” It states,
General Washington, altho’ advanced in years is remarkably healthy, takes a great deal of exercise, and is very fond of riding on a favourite white horse; he is very reserved and loves retirement. . . . He regularly attends divine service in his tent every morning and evening, and seems very fervent in his prayers.93
If this is an insult, it is a back-handed one.
As mentioned earlier, Reverend Jonathan Boucher was the tutor to Washington’s adopted son, Jack Custis. As a result of this educational connection, Boucher became a regular writer to Washington. But when the Revolution came, he chose the Loyalist side, and their relationship ended. Reverend Boucher was so hated for his opposition to the colonial resistance to the British, he even had to have armed protection when he was in the pulpit.94
Boucher’s views naturally led him to strenuous disagreement and criticism of Washington. But in spite of all of this, he still begrudgingly admitted Washington’s religious character. Such a testimony has to carry great weight, since it comes from an Anglican clergyman who had every reason to criticize Washington and certainly nothing to gain by making the affirmation of Washington’s religious commitment. Thus, his remarks are striking both for what they critique, and for what they affirm. This text comes from his autobiography:
I did know Mr. Washington well.... He is shy, silent, stern, slow and cautious; but has no quickness of parts, extraordinary penetration, nor an elevated style of thinking. In his moral character he is regular, temperate, strictly just and honest (excepting that as a Virginian, he has lately found out that there is no moral turpitude in not paying what he confesses he owes to a British creditor), and, as I always thought, religious; having heretofore been pretty constant, and even exemplary, in his attendance on public worship in the Church of England.95
Their final meeting occurred on the Potomac River, as McGoldrick explains,
Washington and Boucher had a dramatic meeting as their boats were passing on the Potomac River. Boucher was returning home, and Washington was on his way to Philadelphia. The rector there pleaded with his friend not to support the movement for war. Washington assured Boucher that he had no desire to see an armed conflict, and the two friends parted, never to meet again.96
These un-coerced testimonies by opponents of George Washington have to carry far greater weight than recent historians, who blithely assert that he was “not a religious man.”97
WASHINGTON’S PERSONAL SENSE OF RELIGION
Washington’s use of the word “religiously” shows us that it is a word of great seriousness. He can use it in a very literal way, where it means having a serious religious way of life. But Washington also uses it in a way that implies a strict and exact obedience, the complete truthfulness of a claim, or a deep moral commitment either to do or to believe something. In all instances of his utilization of the word “religiously,” it is deemed a very honorable quality.
Examples of having a serious religious life:
