CHAPTER 18

1     WGW, vol. 7, 4-15-1777.

2     M’Guire, Religious Opinions, p. 162-167, This story was “taken from a respectable literary journal published in New York,” p. 162.

3     Ibid., p.-156.

4     Meade, Old Churches, vol. II, p.490ff. No. XXIII. “Further Statements Concerning the Religious Character of Washington and the Question Whether he was a Communicant or Not.”

5     WGW, vol. 3, 7-18-1771.

6     1662 Book of Common Prayer, see http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/index.html

7     Ibid.

8     Ibid.

9     WGW, vol. 10, General Orders Head Quarters, White Marsh, November 30, 1777.
“On the 25th of November instant, the Honorable Continental Congress passed the following resolve: Resolved. ... Forasmuch as it is the indispensible duty of all men, to adore the superintending providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with gratitude their obligations to him for benefits received, and to implore such further blessings as they stand in need of; and it having pleased him in his abundant mercy, not only to continue to us the innumerable bounties of his common providence, but also, to smile upon us in the prosecution of a just and necessary war, for the defence of our unalienable rights and liberties.

“It is therefore recommended by Congress, that Thursday the 18th. day of December next be set apart for Solemn Thanksgiving and Praise; that at one time, and with one voice, the good people may express the grateful feelings of their hearts, and consecrate themselves to the service of their divine benefactor; and that, together with their sincere acknowledgements and offerings they may join the penitent confession of their sins; and supplications for such further blessings as they stand in need of. The Chaplains will properly notice this recommendation, that the day of thanksgiving may be duly observed in the army, agreeably to the intentions of Congress.”

10   Ibid., vol. 17, General Orders Head Quarters, Moore’s House, Saturday, November 27, 1779.
“The Honorable the Congress has been pleased to pass the following proclamation.
Whereas it becomes us humbly to approach the throne of Almighty God, with gratitude and praise for the wonders which his goodness has wrought in conducting our fore-fathers to this western world; for his protection to them and to their posterity amid difficulties and dangers; for raising us, their children, from deep distress to be numbered among the nations of the earth; and for arming the hands of just and mighty princes in our deliverance; and especially for that he hath been pleased to grant us the enjoyment of health, and so to order the revolving seasons, that the earth hath produced her increase in abundance, blessing the labors of the husbandmen, and spreading plenty through the land; that he hath prospered our arms and those of our ally; been a shield to our troops in the hour of danger, pointed their swords to victory and led them in triumph over the bulwarks of the foe; that he hath gone with those who went out into the wilderness against the savage tribes; that he hath stayed the hand of the spoiler, and turned back his meditated destruction; that he hath prospered our commerce, and given success to those who sought the enemy on the face of the deep; and above all, that he hath diffused the glorious light of the gospel, whereby, through the merits of our gracious Redeemer, we may become the heirs of his eternal glory: therefore,

“RESOLVED, That it be recommended to the several states, to appoint Thursday, the 9th of December next, to be a day of public and solemn thanksgiving to Almighty God for his mercies, and of prayer for the continuance of his favor and protection to these United States; to beseech him that he would be graciously pleased to influence our public councils, and bless them with wisdom from on high, with unanimity, firmness, and success; that he would go forth with our hosts and crown our arms with victory; that he would grant to his church the plentiful effusions of divine grace, and pour out his holy spirit on all ministers of the gospel; that he would bless and prosper the means of education, and spread the light of christian knowledge through the remotest corners of the earth; that he would smile upon the labours of his people and cause the earth to bring forth her fruits in abundance; that we may with gratitude and gladness enjoy them; that he would take into his holy protection our illustrious ally, give him victory over his enemies, and render him signally great, as the father of his people and the protector of the rights of mankind; that he would graciously be pleased to turn the hearts of our enemies, and to dispense the blessings of peace to contending nations; that he would in mercy look down upon us, pardon our sins and receive us into his favor, and finally, that he would establish the independence of these United States upon the basis of religion and virtue, and support and protect them in the enjoyment of peace, liberty and safety. A strict observance to be paid by the Army to this proclamation and the Chaplains are to prepare and deliver discourses suitable to it.”

11   Ibid., vol. 26, 4-18-1783.

12   Cf., M’Guire, Religious Opinions, 151. During the Constitutional Convention (May to September 1787), over which George Washington presided, progress was slow-going for the first several weeks. Tempers flared. It was hot and muggy and unpleasant. Delegates were coming and going. Some left and never returned. We know there were 55 delegates, yet only 39 signed the document in September, the first being Washington. Progress was so slow that on June 28, the elder statesman amongst them, the well-respected Benjamin Franklin, stood up and gave a monumental speech. He called for them to pray. He told them that they would succeed no greater than the builders of the Tower of Babel if they neglected God. Franklin was not an orthodox Christian. He was one of the 5% amongst them who was not. Yet he gave an impassioned speech—one of the greatest in American history—calling for prayer. Here is one of his statements in that speech: “I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth—that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?” ...Immediately after Franklin spoke, New Jersey delegate Jonathan Dayton described the scene. Note what he says about Washington’s reaction. “The Doctor sat down; and never did I behold a countenance at once so dignified and delighted as was that of Washington at the close of the address; nor were the members of the convention generally less affected. The words of the venerable Franklin fell upon our ears with a weight and authority, even greater that we may suppose an oracle to have had in a Roman senate!” See David C. Gibbs, Jr., Jerry Newcombe, One Nation Under God: Ten things Every Christian Should Know About the Founding of America. (Seminole, FL: Christian Law Association), pp. 159-160.

13   Boller, p. 169. George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799: Series 2 Letterbooks, George Washington to Philadelphia German Lutherans, April 27, 1789 Letterbook 38, Image 40 of 166.

14   Boller, George Washington & Religion, p. 173. PGW: Series 2 Letterbooks, George Washington to Methodist Episcopal Bishops, May 29, 1789, Letterbook 38, Image 42 of 166.

15   WGW, vol. 30, 10-3-1789.

16   Ibid., vol. 34, 11-19-1794

17   Ibid., vol. 35, 12-7-1796.

18   This argument has been used to diminish the importance of Washington’s commitment to providence. Cf. Douglas Southall Freeman George Washington, A Biography, 7 vols. Victory with the Help of France Volume Five (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1952), pp. 493-94. “To this same uncertain frontier of Washington’s mind his personal religion had been brought back after the years of peace had led him, the vestryman and then the warden, to conform without heart searching to the practices of the church. He had believed that a God directed his path, but he had not been particularly ardent in his faith. The war had convinced him that a Providence had intervened to save America from ruin. So often had he remarked it that a French skeptic would have said of him, no doubt, that a fatalist had become superstitious. On the other hand, had a Chaplain at headquarters been privileged to look through Washington’s files he would have been disappointed to find there no evidence of expressed personal belief in any creedal religion. It was almost as if the God of Battles had subordinated the God of the humble heart. The tone of Washington’s addresses and circulars was distinctly more fervent, to be sure, than in 1775, if the theme touched religion, but this change had not become marked until Jonathan Trumbull, Jr., had joined the staff and had begun to write Washington’s public papers of this type. Trumbull’s alternate and successor in this capacity was David Humphreys, who, like the Connecticut Governor’s son, was of theologically minded New England believers. The part these two men played in accentuating and enlarging with their pens the place that Providence had in the mind of Washington probably was among the most extraordinary and least considered influences of puritanism on the thoughts of the young nation. The people who heard the replies of Washington to their addresses doubtless thought they were listening to the General, as indeed they were, to the extent that Washington did not cancel what had been written; but the warmth of the faith was more definitely that of the aide than that of the Commander-in-Chief. Now that the war had ended and the Providence that Washington would observe was that of rain and sunshine and season and storm, not that of marches and battles, it remained for the returning soldier to see whether God again became personal to him.”

19   WGW, vol. 32, 5-24-1793 (WGW note: The draft, in the writing of Jefferson, is in the Jefferson Papers in the Library of Congress.).

20   Ibid., vol. 14, 3-4-1779.

21   Ibid., vol. 21, 2-26-1781.

22   The address of the artillery company is dated Feb. 22, 1794, and it and this answer are entered in the “Letter Book” in the Washington Papers.

23   WGW, vol. 33 2-1794.

24   The original address of the ministers, etc., is in PGW, It is signed “George J: L: Doll. V. D. M

25   WGW, vol. 25 11-16-1782.

26   PGW, Series 4. General Correspondence. 1697-1799, William Linn to George Washington, May 30, 1798, image 243-244.

27   WGW, vol. 36, 6-4-1798.

28   A Discourse on National Sins: Delivered May 9, 1798 Being the day recommended by the President of the United States to be observed as a day of General Fast By William Linn, D.D. One of the ministers of the Reformed Dutch Church in the City of New York. New York: Printed by T. & J. Swords, No. 99 Pearl-Street, 1798. Linn wrote,
“In the fourth place, that the prevalence of infidelity is a cause of divine judgments. Not many years ago, a professed deist, in this country, was rare. If any doubted, they were ashamed to avow it, and they had so much decency as not to ridicule what the generality of mankind held sacred. But infidelity is now no longer concealed. Its advocates are numerous, and propagate their sentiments with a brazen front. Formerly, some of the most celebrated infidels attacked the Christian religion indirectly; but we have seen it represented as a fable not even cunningly devised, as destructive of morality, and the source of innumerable miseries. We have seen it loaded with all manner of reproach, and a bold attempt made to eradicate it from the earth. From an American press have issued the most horrid blasphemies which have ever been uttered. From an American press issued the first part of the “Age of Reason;” and the second part was re-printed here; a multitude of copies were imported, and circulated with uncommon industry. Surely, if our ports be shut, it should be against such principles as these. Were it possible to lay an embargo on them in the country from which they come, it ought to be done; for they are infinitely more to be dreaded than all the fleets and armies of Europe....”
“Perhaps we may date the growth of infidelity among us, from the entrance of the French army. While they brought us the assistance we desired, and accelerated our independence, they leavened us with ungodliness, and it may yet be said of us, “The strength of Pharaoh shall be your shame, and the trust in the shadow of Egypt your confusion.” Deism and atheism have long been propagated among that people, and at their revolution appeared in full maturity. Their very Clergy, the professed Ministers of the religion of Christ, headed by the Archbishop of Paris, came before the National Convention, and abjured the Christian religion, declaring that they considered it as an imposture. What else but horrid deeds were to be expected from those who gloried in the confession of their hypocrisy? What confidence can be placed in those who defy the Majesty of heaven and earth? ... As to the leading object of Thomas Paine, I have expressed an opinion. It is certain that his principles directly tend to confusion, and every evil work.... To the necessity of religion, President Washington has borne ample testimony, in his most excellent address on his resignation; an address fraught with political wisdom, and which, in matter and manner, is worthy the pen of the greatest philosopher and statesman in the world. “Of all the dispositions and habits,” says he, “which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained “without religion.”—If the heathen found their religious institutions and worship absolutely necessary, and highly beneficial, what advantages are to be expected from the profession and influence of the true religion? “There was never found,” says the great Lord Bacon, who may be set against an host of infidels, “in any age of the world, either philosophy, or sect, or religion, which did so highly exalt the public good, as the Christian Faith.”—The French legislators have not satisfied themselves with renouncing revealed religion, but have endeavored to destroy natural religion itself. They have denied the being of God and his providence; that there is any future state of existence; declared death to be an eternal sleep; and set up, no objects of worship, Reason and Liberty.”

29   WGW, vol. 2, 7-20-1758

30   Ibid., vol. 4, 4-29-1776.

31   Ibid., vol. 7, 4-15-1777.

32   Ibid., vol. 11-18-1775.

33   Ibid., vol. 27, 12-12-1783.

34   Ibid., vol. 27, 11-2-1783.

35   Ibid., vol.27, 8-10-1783.

36   Ibid., vol. 26, 6-8-1783.

37   Ibid., vol.27, 8-25-1783.

38   Ibid., vol. 28, 4-10-1785.

39   Ibid., vol. 30, 9-28-1789.

40   Ibid., vol. 30, 10-3-1789.

41   Ibid., vol. 35, 9-19-1796.

42   Ibid., vol. 36, 10-24-1798.

43   Ibid., vol. 37, 1799.

CHAPTER 19

1     WGW, vol. 10, 12-17-1777.

2     This Psalm is indeed remarkable in this historical context. The following selection is taken from The New International Version of the Bible.

1. Contend, O LORD, with those who contend with me;

2. fight against those who fight against me.

3. Take up shield and buckler; arise and come to my aid.

4. Brandish spear and javelin against those who pursue me. Say to my soul, “I am your salvation.”

5. May those who seek my life be disgraced and put to shame; may those who plot my ruin be turned back in dismay.

6. May they be like chaff before the wind, with the angel of the LORD driving them away;

7. may their path be dark and slippery, with the angel of the LORD pursuing them.

8. Since they hid their net for me without cause and without cause dug a pit for me,

9. may ruin overtake them by surprise—may the net they hid entangle them, may they fall into the pit, to their ruin.

10. Then my soul will rejoice in the LORD and delight in his salvation.

11. My whole being will exclaim, “Who is like you, O LORD? You rescue the poor from those too strong for them, the poor and needy from those who rob them.”

3     Cited in Robert Gordon Smith, ed., One Nation Under God: An Anthology for Americans (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1961), pp. 39-40. “Sadly for the American cause, Reverend Duché became a loyalist as the City of Philadelphia fell to the British. He wrote a letter calling on Washington to resign and end the war. Duché left for England. But when the War was over, he returned, and ever the gracious gentleman, Washington answered Duché letter indicating that he held no ill will. Duché’s brother-in-law, Francis Hopkinson, signer of the Declaration and designer of the American flag, wrote a letter to Washington when he learned of the letter from Reverend Duché that had called on him to resign and to end the war.” This was Washington’s response. WGW, vol.10, 11-21, 1777. To Francis Hopkinson.

“Sir: I am favoured with yours of the 14th. inclosing a letter for the Reverend Mr. Duché. I will endeavour to forward it to him, but I imagine it will never be permitted to reach his hands.

[WGW, Note: Hopkinson’s letter to Duché, who was his brother-in-law, is dated November 14 and is printed, in part, in Life and Works of Hopkinson, by George E. Hastings (Chicago, 1926): “Words cannot express the Grief and Consternation that wounded my Soul at the sight of this fatal Performance.... I could go thro’ this extraordinary Letter and point out to you the Truth distorted in every leading Part; But the World will doubtless do this with a Severity that must be Daggers to the Sensibilities of your Heart. Read that Letter over again: and, if possible, divest yourself of the Fears and Influences, whatever they were, that induced you to pen it ... you have by a vain and weak Effort attempted the Integrity of one whose Virtue is impregnable to the Assaults of Fear or Flattery; whose Judgment needed not your Information and who, I am sure, would have resigned his Charge the Moment he found it likely to lead him out of the Paths of Virtue and Honour.... And with whom would you have him negotiate. Are they not those who, without the Sanction of any civil, moral or religious Right, have come 3000 Miles to destroy our Peace and Property: to lay waste to your native Country with Fire and Sword and cruelly muther its Inhabitants. Look for their Justice and Honour, in the Gaols of New York and Philada. and in your own Potter’s Field. ...”]

I confess to you, that I was not more surprised than concerned at receiving so extraordinary a Letter from Mr. Duché, of whom I had entertained the most favourable opinion, and I am still willing to suppose, that it was rather dictated by his fears than by his real sentiments; but I very much doubt whether the great numbers of respectable Characters, in the State and Army, on whom he has bestowed the most unprovoked and unmerited abuse will ever attribute it to the same Cause, or forgive the Man who has artfully endeavoured to engage me to Sacrifice them to purchase my own safety.

I never intended to have made the letter more public than by laying it before Congress. I thought this a duty which I owed to myself, for had any accident have happened to the Army intrusted to my command, and it had ever afterwards have appeared that such a letter had been wrote to and received by me, might it not have been said that I had betrayed my Country? and would not such a correspondence, if kept a secret, have given good Grounds for the suspicion?

I thank you for the favourable sentiments which you are pleased to express of me, and I hope no act of mine will ever induce you to alter them.”

4     First Prayer in Congress—Beautiful Reminiscence (Washington, D. C.: Library of Congress); John S. C. Abbot, George Washington (NY: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1875, 1917), p. 187.

5     Consider the following from the pen of a revolutionary soldier: “Our enemy does not knock them on the head, or burn them to death with torches, or flay them alive, or gradually dismember them till they die, which is customary among Savages &Barbarians. No, they are worse by far. They suffer them to starve, to linger out their lives in extreme hunger. One of these poor unhappy men, driven to the last extreme by the rage of hunger, ate his own fingers up to the first joint of his hand, before he died....” John Joseph Stoudt, Ordeal At Valley Forge: A Chronicle Compiled from the Sources (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1963.) p. 24-25

6     WGW, vol. 3, 8-20-1775. To Lt. Gen. Thomas Gage. “Sir: I addressed you on the 11th. Instant in Terms, which gave the fairest Scope for the Exercise of that Humanity, and Politeness, which were supposed to form a Part of your Character. I remonstrated with you on the unworthy Treatment, shewn to the officers and Citizens of America, whom the Fortune of War, Chance, or a mistaken Confidence, had thrown into your Hands.”

“Whether British or American Mercy, Fortitude, and Patience are most preeminent, whether our virtuous Citizens, whom the Hand of Tyranny has forced into Arms to defend their Wives, their Children, and their Property, or the mercenary Instruments of lawless Domination, avarice and Revenge, best deserve the Appellation of Rebels, and the Punishment of that Cord, which your affected Clemency has forborne to inflict: whether the Authority, under which Fact, is usurped, or founded upon the genuine Principles of Liberty, were altogether foreign to the Subject. I purposely avoided all political Disquisition; nor shall I now avail myself of those Advantages, which the sacred Cause of my Country of Liberty, and human Nature, give me over you.”

7     WGW, vol. 5, 7-7-1776. To Gov. Jonathan Trumbull The Interest of America is now in the Ballance, and it behoves all Attached to her Sacred Cause and the rights of Humanity, to hold forth their Utmost and most speedy Aid. I are Convinced nothing will be wanting in your power to Effect.” WGW, vol. 8, 7-31-1777. To Gov. Jonathan Trumbull. “I sent Genls. Lincoln and Arnold to assist in that Command. These two Gentlemen are esteemed good Officers and, I think very deservedly. I am persuaded, nothing, that their judgements shall direct, will be omitted to stop the Progress of General Burgoyne’s Arms, as far as in them lies — and, I am equally Sure, their personal exertions and Bravery will not be wanting in any instance. Their presence, I trust, will remove every Ground of diffidence and backwardness in the Militia, and that they will go on when and where their Services are demanded, with a Spirit and Resolution becoming Freemen and the Sacred Cause in which they are engaged.”

8     Ibid., vol. 6, 9-4-1776. To Col. Fisher Gay. “Let me therefore not only Command, but exhort you and your Officers, as you regard your Reputation, your Country, and the sacred Cause of Freedom in which you are engaged, to Manly and Vigorous exertions at this time, each striving to excell the other in the respective duties of his department. I trust it is unnecessary for me to add further, and that these and all other Articles of your duty you will execute with a Spirit and punctuallity becoming your Station.”

9     Ibid., vol. 5, 7-10-1776. To The President of Congress.

10   Ibid., vol.11, 4-21-1778, to John Banister.

11   The Congressional thanksgiving Proclamation states: Ibid., vol. 10, 11-30-1777. General Orders. “Forasmuch as it is the indispensible duty of all men, to adore the superintending providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with gratitude their obligations to him for benefits received, and to implore such further blessings as they stand in need of; and it having pleased him in his abundant mercy, not only to continue to us the innumerable bounties of his common providence, but also, to smile upon us in the prosecution of a just and necessary war, for the defence of our unalienable rights and liberties.

It is therefore recommended by Congress, that Thursday the 18th. day of December next be set apart for Solemn Thanksgiving and Praise; that at one time, and with one voice, the good people may express the grateful feelings of their hearts, and consecrate themselves to the service of their divine benefactor; and that, together with their sincere acknowledgements and offerings they may join the penitent confession of their sins; and supplications for such further blessings as they stand in need of. The Chaplains will properly notice this recommendation, that the day of thanksgiving may be duly observed in the army, agreeably to the intentions of Congress.

12   Ibid., vol. 10, 12-17-1777. General Orders. Head Quarters, at the Gulph. “The Commander in Chief with the highest satisfaction expresses his thanks to the officers and soldiers for the fortitude and patience with which they have sustained the fatigues of the Campaign. Altho’ in some instances we unfortunately failed, yet upon the whole Heaven hath smiled on our Arms and crowned them with signal success; and we may upon the best grounds conclude, that by a spirited continuance of the measures necessary for our defence we shall finally obtain the end of our Warfare, Independence, Liberty and Peace. These are blessings worth contending for at every hazard. But we hazard nothing. The power of America alone, duly exerted, would have nothing to dread from the force of Britain. Yet we stand not wholly upon our ground. France yields us every aid we ask, and there are reasons to believe the period is not very distant, when she will take a more active part, by declaring war against the British Crown. Every motive therefore, irresistably urges us, nay commands us, to a firm and manly perseverance in our opposition to our cruel oppressors, to slight difficulties, endure hardships, and contemn every danger. The General ardently wishes it were now in his power, to conduct the troops into the best winter quarters. But where are these to be found? Should we retire to the interior parts of the State, we should find them crowded with virtuous citizens, who, sacrificing their all, have left Philadelphia, and fled thither for protection. To their distresses humanity forbids us to add. This is not all, we should leave a vast extent of fertile country to be despoiled and ravaged by the enemy, from which they would draw vast supplies, and where many of our firm friends would be exposed to all the miseries of the most insulting and wanton depredation. A train of evils might be enumerated, but these will suffice. These considerations make it indispensibly necessary for the army to take such a position, as will enable it most effectually to prevent distress and to give the most extensive security; and in that position we must make ourselves the best shelter in our power. With activity and diligence Huts may be erected that will be warm and dry. In these the troops will be compact, more secure against surprises than if in a divided state and at hand to protect the country. These cogent reasons have determined the General to take post in the neighbourhood of this camp; and influenced by them, he persuades himself, that the officers and soldiers, with one heart, and one mind, will resolve to surmount every difficulty, with a fortitude and patience, becoming their profession, and the sacred cause in which they are engaged. He himself will share in the hardship, and partake of every inconvenience. To morrow being the day set apart by the Honorable Congress for public Thanksgiving and Praise; and duty calling us devoutely to express our grateful acknowledgements to God for the manifold blessings he has granted us. The General directs that the army remain in it’s present quarters, and that the Chaplains perform divine service with their several Corps and brigades. And earnestly exhorts, all officers and soldiers, whose absence is not indispensibly necessary, to attend with reverence the solemnities of the day.”

13   We considered a portion of that sermon in the earlier chapter on Washington’s spirituality.

14   Israel Evans, A Discourse, Delivered, on the 18th Day of December, 1777, the Day of Public Thanksgiving, Appointed by the Honourable Continental Congress, by the Reverend Israel Evans, A. M. Chaplain to General Poor’s Brigade. And now published at the Request of the General and Officers of the said Brigade, To be distributed among the Soldiers, Gratis. Lancaster: Printed by Francis Bailey, 1778.

15   WGW, vol. 5, 7-9-1776.

16   Cf. WGW, vol. 26, 3-18-1783. To the President of Congress. “Sir: The result of the proceedings of the grand Convention of the Officers, which I have the honor of enclosing to your Excellency for the inspection of Congress, will, I flatter myself, be considered as the last glorious proof of Patriotism which could have been given by Men who aspired to the distinction of a patriot Army; and will not only confirm their claim to the justice, but will increase their title to the gratitude of their Country. [WGW Note: Ford prints from a letter from Maj. J. A. Wright to Maj. John Webb, from West Point, Mar. 16, 1783, the following: “Yesterday there was a meeting of the officers. The Commander in Chief came among us, and made a most excellent address; he appeared sensibly agitated; as the writer advises to ‘suspect the man who should advise to more moderation and longer forbearance,’ this expression, together with a second anonymous letter, which I have not seen, gave reason to suppose that it was a plan laid against his Excellency, as every one who knows him must be sensible that he would recommend moderation. The general having finished his address, retired. Gen’l Gates took the chair; the business of the day was conducted with order, moderation, and decency.”]

“Having seen the proceedings on the part of the Army terminate with perfect unanimity, and in a manner entirely consonant to my wishes; being impressed with the liveliest sentiments of affection for those who have so long, so patiently and so chearfully suffered and fought under my immediate direction; having from motives of justice, duty and gratitude, spontaneously offered myself as an advocate for their rights; and having been requested to write to your Excellency earnestly entreating the most speedy decision of Congress upon the subjects of the late Address from the Army to that Honble. Body, it now only remains for me to perform the task I have assumed, and to intercede in their behalf, as I now do, that the Sovereign Power will be pleased to verify the predictions I have pronounced of, and the confidence the Army have reposed in the justice of their Country.

“And here, I humbly conceive it is altogether unnecessary, (while I am pleading the cause of an Army which have done and suffered more than any other Army ever did in the defence of the rights and liberties of human nature,) to expatiate on their Claims to the most ample compensation for their meritorious Services, because they are perfectly known to the whole World, and because, (altho’ the topics are inexhaustible) enough has already been said on the subject.”

17   Ibid., vol.11, 5-2-1778.

18   In Federer, America’s God and Country, pp. 459-60.

19   Ibid., p. 460: “John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg (1746-1807), a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1774, was a 30 year-old pastor who preached on the Christian’s responsibility to be involved in securing freedom for America. He was the son of Henry Melchior Muhlenberg, one of the founders of the Lutheran Church in America. In 1775, after preaching a message on Ecclesiastes 3:1, ‘For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven,’ John Peter Muhlenberg closed his message by saying: ‘In the language of the Holy Writ, there is a time for all things. There is a time to preach and a time to fight. And now is the time to fight.’ He then threw off his clerical robes to reveal the uniform of an officer in the Revolutionary Army. That afternoon, at the head of 300 men, John Peter Muhlenberg marched off to join General Washington’s troops and became Colonel of the 8th Virginia Regiment. He served until the end of the war, during which he was promoted to the rank of Major General. In 1785 he became the Vice-President of Pennsylvania, and in 1790 was a member of the Pennsylvania constitutional Convention. He then served as a U.S. Congressman from Pennsylvania, and in 1801 he was elected to the United States Senate. In 1889, the State of Pennsylvania placed his statue in the Statuary Hall at Washington.”

His younger brother, Frederick Augustus Conrad Muhlenberg (1750-1801), was also a Lutheran clergyman. He at first criticized his brother’s support for the Revolution. But when the British invaded New York where he was pastoring, he was forced to leave and returned to his father’s house in Trappe. Eventually Frederick Augustus entered politics as well. He served as the first Speaker of the United States House of Representatives in 1789. In that capacity, along with Vice-President John Adams, who was thus also President of the Senate, signed the Bill of Rights when it was sent to the states for ratification.

20   WGW, vol. 33 7-24-1793, to the overseers at Mt. Vernon, “You will recollect that your time is paid for by me, and if I am deprived of it, it is worse even than robbing my purse, because it is also a breach of trust, which every honest man ought to hold most sacred. You have found me, and you will continue to find me faithful to my part of the agreement which was made with you, whilst you are attentive to your part; but it is to be remembered, that a breach on one side releases the obligation on the other; if, therefore it shall be proved to me that you are absenting yourself from either the Farm or the people without just cause, I shall hold myself no more bound to pay the wages, than you do to attend strictly to the charge which is entrusted to you, by one who has every disposition to be, Your friend”

21   Ibid., vol. 12, 8-3-1778, *To JOHN PARKE CUSTIS, “I presume you are not unacquainted with the fact of £ 12,000 at compound Interest amounting to upwards of £ 48,000 in twenty four Years. Reason therefore must convince you that unless you avert the evil by a deposit of the like Sum in the loan Office, and there hold it sacred to the purpose of accumulating Interest in the proportion you pay, that you will have abundant cause to repent it. No Virginia Estate (except a very few under the best of management) can stand simple Interest how then can they bear compound Interest. You may be led away with Ideal profits; you may figure great matters to yourself to arise from this, that, or t’other Scheme, but depend upon it they will only exist in the imagination, and that year after year will produce nothing but disappointment and new hopes; these will waste time, whilst your Interest is accumg. and the period approaching when you will be called upon to be prepared perhaps to advance 4 times the original purchase money. Remember therefore, that as a friend, I call upon you with my advice to shun this rock by depositing the Sum you are to pay Alexander, in the loan Office; let it be considered as Alexanders money, and Sacred to that use and that only, for if you shd. be of opinion that pay day being a great way off will give you time enough to provide for it and consequently to apply your present Cash to other uses it does not require the gift of prophecy to predict the Sale of the purchased Estate or some other to pay for it.”

22   Ibid., vol. 15, 5-10-1779. To COLONEL DANIEL BRODHEAD, “[I cannot conclude without recommending the strictest oeconomy in all your conduct and operations; you may be assured it is become indispensably necessary, and that you cannot pursue more effectual means of recommending yourself to public favor and thanks than by an attention to its interests,] at this period of its affairs. [I earnestly recommend that the Batteaux and other vessels, which are built for public use be held in a manner sacred otherwise they will get squandered and when the period arrives that they will be wanted none will be found.]”

23   Ibid., vol. 8, 6-10-1777., GENERAL ORDERS “It is with inexpressible regret the Commander in Chief has been driven to the necessity of doing a severe, but necessary act of Justice, as an example of what is to be expected by those daring offenders, who, lost to all sense of duty, and the obligations they owe to their Country, and to mankind, wantonly violate the most sacred engagements, and fly to the assistance of an enemy, they are bound by every tie to oppose. A spirit of desertion is alone the most fatal disease that can attend an army, and the basest principle that can actuate a soldier; Wherever it shews itself, it deserves detestation, and calls for the most exemplary punishment. What confidence can a General have in any Soldier, who he has reason to apprehend may desert in the most interesting moments? What, but the want of every moral and manly sentiment, can induce him to desert the cause, to which he has pledged his faith, even with the solemnity of an oath, and which he is bound to support, by every motive of justice and good will to himself, and his fellow creatures? When such a character appears, it may almost be said in reference to it, that forbearance is folly; and mercy degenerates into cruelty.”

24   Ibid., vol. 7, 2-28-1777, To MAJOR GENERAL ISRAEL PUTNAM Head Quarters, Morris Town, February 28, 1777, “Dear Sir: Your several favours of the 25th and 26th. Instt. came safe to hand. The pass granted by Lord and Genl. Howe to William Taylor, dated the 18th, is of such a nature, as not to afford any protection to the Vessel and Crew, even on the most scrupulous construction of the Law of Nations, and She came in so suspicious a manner, without a flag flying, as would have justified severer treatment than mere detention. But ‘tis possible, that Taylor and the master of the Vessel, not sufficiently informed of the practice necessarily observable in bearing Flags, or Strangers to the instances, in which Protection can with propriety be granted by an Enemy, came with no ill design; I would therefore have the Vessel and hands released, being desirous to remove from our Army every, the smallest, Imputation of an Infringement on the sacred dignity of a Flag. Indeed I would pass over unnoticed, any small deviation from the usual Line in these cases, if not attended with danger to us. They are to consider this early discharge as an Indulgence, which they, or any other person, must not expect a Repetition of. It may not be improper to send Colo. Foreman a Copy of this part of my answer, that Taylor may know my sentiments, and the Reasons that induce me to discharge his Vessel. When the English Letters, that were found on board, come to you, please to send them to me, if of any Consequence.”
Ibid., vol. 11, 3-22-1778, To SIR WILLIAM HOWE, “The conduct of Lieutenant Col. Brooks in detaining John Miller, requires neither palliation nor excuse. I justify and approve it. There is nothing so sacred in the Character of the King’s Trumpeter, even when sanctified by a flag, as to alter the nature of things, or consecrate infidelity and Guilt. He was a Deserter from the Army under my Command; and, whatever you have been pleased to assert to the Contrary, it is the Practice of War and Nations, to seize and punish Deserters Wherever they may be found. His appearing in the character he did, was an aggravation of his Offence, in as much as it added insolence to perfidy. My scrupulous regard to the priviledges of flags, and a desire to avoid every thing, that partiality itself might affect to consider as a violation of them, induced me to send orders for the release of the Trumpeter, before the receipt of your Letter; the improper and peremptory Terms of which, had it not been too late, would have strongly operated to produce a less compromising conduct; I intended at the time to assure you, and I wish it to be remembered, that my indulgence in this instance, is not to be drawn into precedent, and that, should any deserters from the American Army, hereafter have the daring folly to approach our Lines in a similar manner, they will fall victims to their rashness and presumption.”

25   Ibid., vol. 10, 1-29-1778, To THE COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS, “In speaking of rank, as a spur to enterprise, I am led, by the way to hint an idea, which may be improved and turned to no small advantage. This is the institution of honorary rewards, differing in degree, to be conferred on those, who signalize themselves, by any meritorious actions, in proportion to the magnitude and brilliancy of the achievement. These should be sacred to the purpose of their institution, and unattainable by loose recommendations, or vague, though arrogating pretension; given only upon authentic vouchers of real desert, from some proper board. Congress have already adopted the idea, in particular instances; but it were to be wished, it could be extended to something more general and systematic. I have not sufficiently employed my thoughts upon the subject, to digest them into a proposition, as to the nature variety and extent of these rewards; but I would in general observe, that they may consist in things of very little cost, or real value, and that the more diversified they are, the better. If judiciously and impartially administered, they would be well calculated to kindle that emulous love of glory and distinction, to which may be imputed far the greater part of the most illustrious exploits performed among mankind, and which is peculiarly necessary to be cherished and cultivated in a military life.”

26   Ibid., vol. 34 10-20-1794, To GOVERNOR HENRY LEE, “There is but one point on which I think it proper to add a special recommendation. It is this, that every officer and soldier will constantly bear in mind that he comes to support the laws and that it would be peculiarly unbecoming in him to be in any way the infractor of them; that the essential principles of a free government confine the provinces of the Military to these two objects: 1st: to combat and subdue all who may be found in arms in opposition to the National will and authority; 2dly to aid and support the civil Magistrate in bringing offenders to justice. The dispensation of this justice belongs to the civil Magistrate and let it ever be our pride and our glory to leave the sacred deposit there unviolated. Convey to my fellow citizens in arms my warm acknowledgments for the readiness with which they have seconded me in the most delicate and momentous duty the chief Magistrate of a free people can have to perform and add my affectionate wishes for their health comfort and success. Could my further presence with them have been necessary or compatible with my civil duties at a period when the approaching commencement of a session of Congress particularly urges me to return to the seat of Government, it would not have been withheld. In leaving them I have the less regret, as I know I commit them to an able and faithful director; and that this director will be ably and faithfully seconded by all.”

27   Ibid., vol. 22, 5-5-1781, To BRIGADIER GENERAL JAMES CLINTON, “Alarmed at the critical situation of the Garrison of Fort Schuyler, I ordered out of the small pittance in our Magazines, 50 Barrels of Meat and the same quantity of flour, to be transported from this Army, and instantly thrown into that Garrison, but the Commissary reports there are but 34 Bbs of Meat in store. I have directed this number to be sent, and the residue of the 50 Barrels to be made up, from the Fish lately barreled on the River. This supply (the Fish included, or not, as you think proper) you will be pleased to consider as solely designed for the relief of the Garrison of Fort Schuyler, and sacredly to be appropriated to that and no other purpose whatever: For in our present embarrassed circumstances, when we know not from whence the supplies of tomorrow are to be derived, no inferior object could have justified the Measure of stripping this Army of its last Mouthful.”
Ibid., vol. 22, 7-11-1781, To COLONEL CHARLES STEWART, “Sir: It is his Excellency’s request that you will take immediate and effectual Measures, to have such a number of the Beef Cattle from the Eastern part of Connecticut and that part of Massachusetts contiguous to Rhode Island, furnished for the Militia Stationed at R Island, that they may not be under the necessity of consuming a single Barrel of salted Provision, if it can possibly be avoided. The Salted Provision to be repacked (if necessary) and kept sacredly as a reserve in the Magazine where it now is.”

28   Ibid., vol. 25, 9-25-1782. To COLONEL ELISHA SHELDON, “Sir: On friday next you will move from your Quarters (wherever they may be) with your whole Corps, at such time and manner, as to be at the White Plains positively between sunset and dark; your Men will require provisions for saturday and may be perfectly light. I send you the Paroles and Cr Signs untill the 29th inclusive, you will keep them sacredly to yourself, except when they are to be delivered to the Officers entitled to them, on the several days they are designed for.”

29   Ibid., vol. 26, 3-3-1783. To LIEUTENANT COLONEL WILLIAM STEPHENS SMITH, “It is much to be regretted, that while I am using every means in my power to comply with the orders of Congress, founded, in my judgment, on our true interest and policy, that there should be such a counteraction as we daily experience by individuals. But lamentable indeed is our situation when States, or the Administration of them, are leaping over those bounds which should ever be deemed the sacred barrier betwn. us and the Enemy, without which all opposition to their measures must soon cease. or dwindle into something, ridiculous enough.”

30   Ibid., vol. 26, 4-18-1783. To THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS “This Act, at a comparative small Expence, would be deemed an honorable Testimonial from Congress of the Regard they bear to those distinguished Worthies, and the Sense they have of their suffering Virtues and Services, which have been so happily instrumental towards the security and Establishment of the Rights Liberties and Independence of this rising Empire. These constant companions of their Toils and Dangers, preserved with sacred Care, would be handed down from the present possessors, to their Children, as honorable Badges of Bravery and military Merit; and would probably be bro’t forth, on some future Occasion, with Pride and Exultation, to be improved, with the same military Ardor and Emulation, in the Hands of posterity, as they have been used by their forefathers in the present Establishment and foundation of our National Independence and Glory.”

31   Ibid., vol. 25 10-23-1782. To REVEREND WILLIAM GORDON “It appears to me impracticable for the best Historiographer living, to write a full and correct history of the present revolution who has not free access to the Archives of Congress, those of Individual States, the Papers of the Commander in Chief, and Commanding Officers of seperate departments. Mine, while the War continues, I consider as a species of Public property, sacred in my hands; and of little Service to any Historian who has not that general information which is only to be derived with exactitude from the sources I have mentioned. When Congress then shall open their registers, and say it is proper for the Servants of the public to do so, it will give me much pleasure to afford all the Aid to your labors and laudable undertaking which my Papers can give; ‘till one of those periods arrive I do not think myself justified in suffering an inspection of, and any extracts to be taken from my Records.”

32   Ibid., vol. 26, 3-18-1783, To THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS, “To prove these assertions, to evince that my sentiments have ever been uniform, and to shew what my ideas of the rewards in question have always been, I appeal to the Archives of Congress, and call on those sacred deposits to witness for me.”

33   Ibid, vol. 1, 5-27-1754, JOURNAL May 27, 1754. “Besides, an Embassador has princely attendants, whereas this was only a simple petty French officer; an Embassador has no need of spies, his person being always sacred: and since their intention was so good, why did they tarry two days, five miles distance from us, without acquainting me with the summons, or at least, with something that related to the Embassy? That alone would be sufficient to excite the strongest suspicions, and we must to do them the justice to say, that as they wanted to hide themselves, they could not have picked out better places than they had done.”

34   Ibid., vol. 1, Address To His Command. “And though our utmost endeavors can contribute but little to the advancement of his Majesty’s honor and the interest of his governments, yet let us show our willing obedience to the best of kings, and, by a strict attachment to his royal commands, demonstrate the love and loyalty we bear to his sacred person; let us, by rules of unerring bravery, strive to merit his royal favor, and a better establishment as reward for our services.”

35   Ibid., vol. 19, 8-11-1780, To BRIGADIER GENERALS ANTHONY WAYNE AND WILLIAM IRVINE, “Citizens and good men to realize the consequences and to assure themselves they act upon substantial grounds before they venture to execute what they have intimated. They ought to recollect that they cannot hereafter be happy, if they find their conduct condemned by the country and by the army, especially if it has been the cause of any misfortune. They should remember that we have actually entered upon the operations of the campaign; that we are now in the vicinity of the enemy and in a position that makes an action not very improbable perhaps not very remote [if my intelligence true.] When they duly weigh these things they cannot but be sensible that the love of their country; the obligations of their respective stations; what they owe to their own characters and to that discipline which ought to be sacred among military men; all these motives call upon them to relinquish the intention they have suggested. It is true, we have not many considerations of interest to attach us to the service; but we have those of honor and public good [in a high degree] and I flatter myself these ties will not prove too feeble.”
Ibid., vol. 23, 10-31-1781, GENERAL ORDERS, “The General cannot forbear adding that Accusations of so serious a nature should be made with the most scrupulous caution; an Officer’s Character being too sacred to be impeached with Levity without a sufficient foundation.”

36   Ibid., vol. 26, 3-5-1783, To THE OFFICERS OF THE ARMY “And let me conjure you, in the name of our common Country, as you value your own sacred honor, as you respect the rights of humanity, and as you regard the Military and National character of America, to express your utmost horror and detestation of the Man who wishes, under any specious pretences, to overturn the liberties of our Country, and who wickedly attempts to open the flood Gates of Civil discord, and deluge our rising Empire in Blood. By thus determining, and thus acting, you will pursue the plain and direct road to the attainment of your wishes. You will defeat the insidious designs of our Enemies, who are compelled to resort from open force to secret Artifice. You will give one more distinguished proof of unexampled patriotism and patient virtue, rising superior to the pressure of the most complicated sufferings; And you will, by the dignity of your Conduct, afford occasion for Posterity to say, when speaking of the glorious example you have exhibited to Mankind, “had this day been wanting, the World had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining.”

37   Ibid., vol. 5, 7-15-1776, To THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS New York, July 15, 1776. “The Inhuman Treatment to the whole, and Murder of part of our People after their Surrender and Capitulation, was certainly a flagrant violation of that Faith which ought to be held sacred by all civilized nations, and founded in the most Savage barbarity. It highly deserved the severest reprobation, and I trust the Spirited Measures Congress have adopted upon the Occasion, will prevent the like in future: But if they should not, and the claims of humanity are disregarded, Justice and Policy will require recourse to be had to the Law of retaliation, however abhorrent and disagreeable to our natures in cases of Torture and Capital Punishments”.

38   Ibid., vol. 3, 4-5-1775, To GEORGE MERCER “I enclose you a copy of my last letter of the 4th. of December, and an account of the proceedings of the Convention held at Richmond the 20th. ulto. A great number of very good companies were raised in many Counties in this Colony, before it was recommended to them by the Convention, and are now in excellent training; the people being resolved, altho’ they wish for nothing, more ardently, than a happy and lasting reconciliation with the parent State, not to purchase it at the expence of their liberty, and the sacred compacts of Government.”
Ibid, vol. 34, 1-22-1795, To EDMUND PENDLETON “My communications to Congress at the last and present Session, have proceeded upon similar ideas with those expressed in your letter, namely, to make fair treaties with the Savage tribes, (by this I mean, that they shall perfectly understand every article and clause of them, from correct and repeated interpretations); that these treaties shall be held sacred, and the infractors on either side punished exemplarily; and to furnish them plentifully with goods under wholesome regulations, without aiming at higher prices than is adequate to cover the cost, and charges. If measures like these were adopted, we might hope to live in peace and amity with these borderers; but not whilst our citizens, in violation of law and justice, are guilty of the offences I have mentioned, and are carrying on unauthorised expeditions against them; and when, for the most attrocious murders, even of those of whom we have the least cause of complaint, a Jury on the frontiers, can hardly be got to listen to a charge, much less to convict a culprit.”

39   Ibid., vol. 4, ANSWER TO AN ADDRESS FROM THE MASSACHUSETTS LEGISLATURE. “When the councils of the British nation had formed a plan for enslaving America, and depriving her sons of their most sacred and invaluable privileges, against the clearest remonstrances of the constitution, of justice, and of truth, and, to execute their schemes, had appealed to the sword, I esteemed it my duty to take a part in the contest, and more especially on account of my being called thereto by the unsolicited suffrages of the representatives of a free people; wishing for no other reward, than that arising from a conscientious discharge of the important trust, and that my services might contribute to the establishment of freedom and peace, upon a permanent foundation, and merit the applause of my countrymen, and every virtuous citizen.”

40   Ibid., vol. 34, 12-8-1795, SEVENTH ANNUAL ADDRESS, “It is a valuable ingredient in the general estimate of our welfare, that the part of our country, which was lately the scene of disorder and insurrections, now enjoys the blessings of quiet and order. The misled have abandoned their errors, and pay the respect to our Constitution and laws which is due from good citizens, to the public authorities of the society. These circumstances, have induced me to pardon, generally, the offenders here referred to; and to extend forgiveness to those who had been adjudged to capital punishment. For though I shall always think it a sacred duty, to exercise with firmness and energy, the Constitutional powers with which I am vested, yet it appears to me no less consistent with the public good, than it is with my personal feelings, to mingle in the operations of government, every degree of moderation and tenderness, which the national justice, dignity and safety may permit.”
Ibid. vol. 35, 5-5-1769 To JOSEPH LEECH, “A sacred regard to the constitution, and to the best interests of the United States as involved in its preservation, having governed my conduct on that occasion, the consciousness thereof would at all times have furnished me with strong ground of satisfaction.”

41   Ibid., vol. 35, FAREWELL ADDRESS, 9-19-1796, “The Unity of Government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main Pillar in the Edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home; your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual and immoveable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned, and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our Country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.”

42   This seems to fit both categories of Washington’s use of the word “sacred” so it is included here as well.
Ibid., vol. 8, 6-10-1777, GENERAL ORDERS, “It is with inexpressible regret the Commander in Chief has been driven to the necessity of doing a severe, but necessary act of Justice, as an example of what is to be expected by those daring offenders, who, lost to all sense of duty, and the obligations they owe to their Country, and to mankind, wantonly violate the most sacred engagements, and fly to the assistance of an enemy, they are bound by every tie to oppose.”

43   Ibid., vol. 2, 6-8-1768., To MRS. WILLIAM SAVAGE June 28, 1768. , “Madam: If the most solemn asseverations of a man are sufficient to give credit to his report. If the honor and veracity of a Gentleman are things sacred enough to extort the truth, we have all the reasons imaginable to conclude that Doctr. Savage is entirely ignorant of the part you act in respect to the bond given in Trust to Mr. Fairfax and myself for your use;”

44   Ibid., vol. 26, 6-8-1783, CIRCULAR TO THE STATES “There are four things, which I humbly conceive, are essential to the well being, I may even venture to say, to the existence of the United States as an Independent Power: 1st. An indissoluble Union of the States under one Federal Head. 2dly. A Sacred regard to Public Justice.”

45   Ibid., vol. 15, 5-29-1779. To COLONEL CLEMENT BIDDLE, “It is my wish that every possible respect should be paid in all cases to the Laws of this and every other State and a sacred regard to the property of each Individual Member as far as it can be done; but if necessity will not admit of their strict observance it must justify a deviation and such infringements as she compells. However, to prevent as much as possible any just ground of complaint and the charge of a wanton exercise of power, you should use every practicable exertion to obtain forage in the Ordinary way and where this cannot be effected, wherever circumstances will permit, you should make written requisitions to the Magistrates for pasturage and Meadows and obtain them by their allotment. If they will not permit or the Mgistrates refuse to designate them, or to make a competent provision, the exigency of the Public service must decide the conduct you are to pursue. I have mentioned the precautions because (tho’ all regulations must yield to necessity) the principle should be introduced with caution, and practised upon with still more delicacy.”
Ibid., vol. 24, 7-11-1782, To GOVERNOR GEORGE CLINTON “To remedy these evils, I have taken the liberty to trouble you with this, and to entreat that your Excellency will have the goodness to use your assistance and influence in devising some efficacious mode for furnishing Forage, without imposing upon the Public, or injury to the owners; taking care at the same time, that the value of the property taken may be justly ascertained in such manner, as that the debt shall be equitably paid by the Public, without breaking in upon the present arrangements of the Financier, which ought to be supported and maintained inviolably sacred, as we regard the safety and preservation of our Country.”

46   Ibid., vol. 36, 7-13-1798, To THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, “Satisfied therefore, that you have sincerely wished and endeavoured to avert war, and exhausted to the last drop, the cup of reconciliation, we can with pure hearts appeal to Heaven for the justice of our cause, and may confidently trust the final result to that kind Providence who has heretofore, and so often, signally favoured the People of these United States.

“Thinking in this manner, and feeling how incumbent it is upon every person, of every description, to contribute at all times to his Country’s welfare, and especially in a moment like the present, when every thing we hold clear and Sacred it so seriously threatned, I have finally determined to accept the Commission of Commander in Chief of the Armies of the United States, with the reserve only, that I shall not be called into the field until the Army is in a situation to require my presence, or it becomes indispensable by the urgency of circumstances.”
Ibid., vol. 36, 7-16-1798, To HENRY KNOX, “Viewing things in this light, I would fain hope, as we are forming an Army A New, which Army, if needful at all, is to fight for every thing that ought to be dear and sacred to freemen that former rank will be forgot; and among the fit and chosen characters, the only contention will be, who shall be foremost in zeal at this crisis, to serve his Country, in whatever situation circumstances may place him. Most of those, who are best qualified to oppose the enemy, will have sacrifices of ease, Interest, or Inclination to make; but what are these, when put in competition with the loss of our Independence or the Subjugation of our Government? both of which are evidently struck at, by an intoxicated, ambitious, and domineering Foe.”
Ibid., vol. 36, 7-25-1798, To DOCTOR JAMES ANDERSON, “When every thing Sacred, and dear to Freemen is thus threatned, I could not consistent with the principles which have actuated me through life, remain an idle spectator, and refuse to obey the call of my Country to lead its Armies for defence and therefore have pledged myself to come forward whensoever the exigency shall require it.”

47   Ibid., vol. 2, CATALOGUE OF BOOKS FOR MASTER CUSTIS REFERRED TO ON THE OTHERSIDE, VIZ. Blackwells Sacred Classics, 2 vols.

48   Ibid., vol. 26, 2-15-1783, GENERAL ORDERS, “The Commander in Chief also desires and expects the Chaplains in addition to their public functions will in turn constantly attend the Hospitals and visit the sick, and while they are thus publickly and privately engaged in performing the sacred duties of their office they may depend upon his utmost encouragement and support on all occasions, and that they will be considered in a very respectable point of light by the whole Army.”

49   Ibid., vol. 4, 3-6-1776, GENERAL ORDERS Head Quarters, Cambridge, March 6, 1776. , “Thursday the seventh Instant, being set apart by the Honourable the Legislature of this province, as a day of fasting, prayer, and humiliation, “to implore the Lord, and Giver of all victory, to pardon our manifold sins and wickedness’s, and that it would please him to bless the Continental Arms, with his divine favour and protection” — All Officers, and Soldiers, are strictly enjoined to pay all due reverance, and attention on that day, to the sacred duties due to the Lord of hosts, for his mercies already received, and for those blessings, which our Holiness and Uprightness of life can alone encourage us to hope through his mercy to obtain.”

50   WGW, vol. 27, 8-20-1783. To John Gabriel Tegelaar.

51   WGW, vol. 30, 6-15-1789. Note. Answer to the Address of the Governor and Council of North Carolina. “A difference of opinion on political points is not to be imputed to Freemen as a fault since it is to be presumed that they are all actuated by an equally laudable and sacred regard for the liberties of their Country. If the mind is so formed in different persons as to consider the same object to be somewhat different in its nature and consequences as it happens to be placed in different points of view; and if the oldest, the ablest, and the most virtuous Statesmen have often differed in judgment, as to the best forms of Government, we ought, indeed rather to rejoice that so much has been effected, than to regret that more could not all at once be accomplished.”

52   WGW, vol.11, 4-21-1778, to John Banister.

53   WGW, vol. 10, 12-17-1777.

54   Throughout this section, all of the references unless otherwise noted are to John Joseph Stoudt, Ordeal At Valley Forge (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1963.) Page numbers will simply be included in the text without footnote.

55   WGW, vol. 10, 12-20-1777

56   Stoudt, Ordeal, 3-10-1778, p. 176, 123, 176, 299, 250

57   Ibid., p. 250, 4-26-1778.

58   Ibid., p. 46.

59   Ibid., p. 66.

60   Ibid., p. 68.

61   Ibid., p. 133.

62   Ibid., p. 158.

63   Ibid., p. 225.

64   Ibid., p. 53.

65   Ibid., p. 49.

66   Ibid., p. 89.

67   Ibid., p. 101.

68   Ibid., p. 110.

69   Ibid., p.104, 156.

70   Ibid., p.121.

71   Ibid., p. 121.

72   Ibid., p. 30.

73   Ibid., p. 147.

74   Ibid., p. 45.

75   Ibid., p. 123, 134, 137, 190.

76   Ibid., p. 62.

77   Ibid., p. 137.

78   Ibid., p. 143.

79   Ibid., p. 216.

80   Ibid., p. 178, 181, 232.

81   Ibid., p. 188.

82   Ibid., p. 97, 67, 151, 39, 206, 235.

83   Ibid., p. 142.

84   Ibid., p.111, 268.

85   Ibid., p. 87.

86   Ibid., p. 115.

87   Ibid., p. 35.

88   Ibid., p. 136.

89   Ibid., p. 115.

90   Ibid., p. 31.

91   Ibid., p. 39.

92   Ibid., p. 40.

93   Ibid., p. 249.

94   Ibid., p. 45, 46, 241.

95   Ibid., p. 45.

96   Ibid., p. 124.

97   Ibid., p. 223.

98   Ibid., p. 140.

99   Ibid., p. 101.

100 Ibid., p. 116, 237.

101 Ibid., p. 70-71.

102 Ibid., p. 116.

103 Ibid., p.70.

104 Ibid., p. 107, 115.

105 Ibid., p.88.

106 Ibid., p. 61-62.

107 Ibid., p. 243.

108 WGW, vol. 10, 1-23-1778. To Reverend William Gordon. “I have attended to your information and remark, on the supposed intention of placing General L—, [Lee] at the head of the army: whether a serious design of that kind had ever entered into the head of a member of C —[Congress] or not, I never was at the trouble of enquiring. I am told a scheme of that kind is now on foot by some, in behalf of another gentleman, but whether true or false, whether serious, or merely to try the pulse, I neither know nor care; neither interested nor ambitious views led me into the service, I did not solicit the command, but accepted it after much entreaty, with all that diffidence which a conscious want of ability and experience equal to the discharge of so important a trust, must naturally create in a mind not quite devoid of thought; and after I did engage, pursued the great line of my duty, and the object in view (as far as my judgement could direct) as pointedly as the needle to the pole. So soon then as the public gets dissatisfied with my services, or a person is found better qualified to answer her expectation, I shall quit the helm with as much satisfaction, and retire to a private station with as much content, as ever the wearied pilgrim felt upon his safe arrival in the Holy-land, or haven of hope; and shall wish most devoutly, that those who come after may meet with more prosperous gales than I have done, and less difficulty. If the expectation of the public has not been answered by my endeavours, I have more reasons than one to regret it; but at present shall only add, that a day may come when the public cause is no longer to be benefited by a concealment of our circumstances; and till that period arrives, I shall not be among the first to disclose such truths as may injure it.”

109 Stoudt, Ordeal, p. 128.

110 Ibid., p. 87.

111 Ibid., p.242.

112 Ibid., p. 243-44.

113 Ibid., p. 198, 260.

114 Ibid., p. 205, 212.

115 Ibid., p. 61, 97, 125, 139, 141, 155, 199.

116 Ibid., p. 145, 161-62, 188, 196.

117 Ibid., p. 209, 259.

118 Ibid., p. 249.

119 Ibid., p. 330.

120 Ibid., p. 171.

121 Ibid., p. 157-58.

122 Ibid., p. 187.

123 Ibid., p. 192.

124 Ibid., p. 260.

125 Ibid., p. 100.

126 Ibid., p. 110.

127 Ibid., p. 112, 129, 154.

128 Ibid., p. 106, 201.

129 Ibid., p. 117.

130 Ibid., p. 160.

131 WGW, vol. 11, 5-30-1778. To Landon Carter.

132 Boller, George Washington & Religion, p. 10-11.

133 Ibid., pp. 9-10.

134 Ibid., pp. 9-10.

135 See Peter A. Lillback, Freedom’s Holy Light, (Bryn Mawr: The Providence Forum, 2000), p. 35.

136 Johnson, Weems, Life of Washington, p. 181. “In the winter of 1777-78, Washington, with the American army, was encamped at Valley Forge, amidst all the perplexities and troubles and sufferings, the Commander-in-chief sought for direction and comfort from God. He was frequently observed to visit a secluded grove. One day a Tory Quaker by the name of Isaac Potts “had occasion to pass through the woods near headquarters. Treading in his way along the venerable grove, suddenly he heard the sound of a human voice, which, as he advanced, increased in his ear; and at length became like the voice of one speaking much in earnest. As he approached the spot with a cautions step, whom should be behold, in a dark natural bower of ancient oaks, but the Commander-in-chief of the American armies on his knees at prayer! Motionless with surprise, Friend Potts continued on the place till the genera, having ended his devotions, arose, and with a countenance of angelic serenity, retired to headquarters.
Friend Potts then went home, and on entering his parlor called out to his wife, “Sarah! My dear Sarah! All’s well! All’s well! George Washington will yet prevail.”
“What’s the matter, Isaac?” replied she; “thee seems moved.”
“Well, if I seem moved, tis’ no more than what I really am. I have this day seen what I never expected. Thee knows that I always thought that the sword and the gospel were utterly inconsistent; and that no man could be a soldier and a Christian at the same time. But George Washington has this day convinced me of my mistake.” He then related what he had seen, and concluded with this prophetical remark! “If George Washington be not a man of God, I am greatly deceived – and still more shall I be deceived, if God do not, though him, work out a great salvation for America.”

137 Benson J. Lossing, Pictorial Field-Book of the Revolution (1860), vol. II. P. 130. “Isaac Potts, at whose house Washington was quartered. Related that one day, while the Americans were encamped at Valley Forge, he strolled up the creek, when, not far from his den, he heard a solemn voice. He walked quietly in the direction of it, and saw Washington’s horse tied to a sapling. In a thicket near by was the beloved chief upon his knees in prayer, his cheeks suffused with tears. Like Moses at the bush, Isaac felt that he was upon holy ground, and withdrew unobserved. He was much agitated, and one entering the room where his wife was, he burst into tears. On her inquiring the cause, he informed her of what he had seen, and added, “It there is anyone on this earth whom the Lord will listen to, it is George Washington; and I feel a presentiment that under such a commander there can be no doubt of our eventually establishing our independence, and that God in his providence has willed it so.”

138 M’Guire, Religious Opinions, p. 158. Extract of a letter from a Baptist minister to the editor of the (Boston) Christian Watchman, dated Baltimore, January 13, 1832:
“The meetinghouse (which is built of stone) belonging to the church just alluded to is in sight of the spot on which the American army, under the command of General Washington, was encamped during a most severe winter. This, you know, was then called ‘Valley Forge.’ It is affecting to hear the old people narrate the sufferings of the army, when the soldiers were frequently tracked by the blood from the sore and bare feet, lacerated by the rough and frozen roads over which there were obliged to pass. “You will recollect that a most interesting incident, in relation to the life of the great America commander-in-chief, has been related as follows: That while stationed here with the army he was frequently observed to visit a secluded grove. This excited the curiosity of a Mr. Potts, of the denomination of ‘Friends,’ who watched his movements at one of these seasons of retirement, till he perceived that he was one his knees and engaged in prayer. Mr. Potts when returned, and said to his family, ‘Our cause is lost’ (he was with the Tories), assigning his reasons for this opinion. There is a man by the name of Devault Beaver, now living on this spot (and is eighty years of age), who says he has this statement from Mr. Potts and his family.
“I have before heard this interesting anecdote in the life of our venerated Washington, but had some misgivings about it, all of which are now fully removed.”

139 Theodore Wm. John Wylie, Washington, A Christian, (1862), pp. 28, 29. The following note was written to the Reverend T.E.J. Wylie, D.D., pastor of the First Reformed Presbyterian Church, of Philadelphia, February 28, 1862:

“My Dear Sir,

Referring to your request, I have to say that I cannot lay my hands at present upon my father’s papers. I recollect that among his manuscript “Reminiscences,” was a statement of his interview with Mr. Potts, A Friend, near Valley Forge, who pointed out to him the spot where he saw General Washington at prayer in the winter of 1777. This event induced Friend Potts to become a Whig; and he told his wife Betty, that the cause of America was a good cause, and would prevail, and that they must now support it. Mr. Weems, in his “Life of Washington,” mentions this incident a little differently; but my father had it from Mr. Potts personally, and the statement herein made may therefore be relied on as accurate.
I am, with great regard,

Yours truly,

James Ross Snowden
Dr. Wylie says, “We have heard the incident just related from the lops of the late Dr. N.R. Snowden, who was informed it by the person himself.”

140 M’Guire, Religious Opinions, p. 159. “It may be added that besides the individual named above as having witnessed the private devotions of General Washington at Valley Forge, it is known that General Knox also was an accidental witness of the same, and was fully apprised that prayer was the object of the Commander’s frequent visits to the grove. This officer was especially devoted to the person of the Commander-in-Chief, and had very free and familiar access to him, which may in some measure account for his particular knowledge of his habits. That an adjacent wood should have been selected as his private oratory, while regularly encamped for the winter, may excite the inquiry of some. The cause may possibly be found in the fact that, in common with the officers and soldiers of the army, he lodged during that winter in a log hut, which, from the presence of Mrs. Washington, and perhaps other inmates, and the fewness of the apartments, did not admit of that privacy proper for such a duty.”

141 WGW, vol. 7, 4-15-1777.

142 Ibid., vol. 7, 4-12-1777. To Edmund Pendleton.

143 Henry C. Watson, “Story of General Washington” in Old Bell of Independence, or, Philadelphia in 1776 (Philadelphia: Lindsay & Blakiston, 1851), pp. 19-23.
“Grandfather,” said Thomas Jefferson Harmar, “won’t you tell us something about General Washington?” “I could tell you many a thing about that man, my child,” replied old Harmar, “But I suppose people know everything concerning him by this time. You see, these history writers go about hunting up every incident relating to the war, now, and after a while they’ll know more about it – or say they do- than the men who were actors in it.”

“That’s not improbable,” said young Harmar. “These historians may not know as much of the real spirit of the people at that period, but that they should be better acquainted with the mass of facts relating to battles and to political affairs is perfectly natural.” The old man demurred, however, and mumbled over, that nobody could know the real state of things who was not living among them at the time.

“But the little boy wants to hear a story about Washington,” said Wilson. “Can’t you tell him something about the man? I think I could. Any one who wants to appreciate the character of Washington, and the extent of his services during the Revolution, should know the history of the campaign of 1776, when every body was desponding, and thinking of giving up the good cause. I tell you, if Washington had not been superior to all other men, that cause must have sunk into darkness.”

“You say well,” said Smith. “We, who were at Valley Forge, know something of his character.” “I remember an incident,” said Wilson, “that will give you some idea, Mrs. Harmar, of the heart of George Washington had in his bosom. I suppose Mr. Harmar has told you something of the sufferings of our men during the winter we lay at Valley Forge. It was a terrible season. It’s hard to give a faint idea of it in words; but you may imagine a party of men, with ragged clothes and no shoes, huddled around a fire in a log hut – the snow about two feet deep on the ground, and the wind driving fierce and bitter through the chinks of the rude hovel. Many of the men had their feet frost-bitten, and there were no remedies to be had, like there is now-a-days. The sentinels suffered terribly, and looked more like ghosts than men, as they paced up and down before the lines of huts.”

“I wonder the men didn’t all desert,” remarked Mrs. Harmar. “They must have been uncommon men.” “They were uncommon men, or at least, they suffered in an uncommon cause,” replied Wilson. “But about General Washington. He saw how the men were situated, and I really believe, his heart bled for them. He would write to Congress of the state of affairs, and entreat that body to procure supplies; but, you see, Congress hadn’t the power to comply. All it could do was to call on the States, and await the action of their Assemblies.
“Washington’s head-quarters was near the camp, and he often came over to see the poor fellows, and to try to soothe and comfort them; and, I tell you, the men loved that man as if he had been their father, and would rather have died with him than have lived in luxury with the red-coat general.

“I recollect a scene I beheld in the next hut to the one in which I messed. An old friend, named Josiah Jones, was dying. He was lying on a scant straw bed, with nothing but rags to cover him. He had been sick for several days, but wouldn’t go under the doctor’s hands, as he always said it was like going into battle, certain of being killed. One day, when we had no notion of anything of the kind, Josiah called out to us, as we sat talking near his bed, that he was dying, and wanted us to pray for him. We were all anxious to do anything for the man, for we loved him as a brother; but as for praying, we didn’t exactly know how to go about it. To get clear of the service, I ran to obtain the poor fellow a drink of water to moisten his parched lips.

“While the rest were standing about, not knowing what to do, some one heard the voice of General Washington in the next hut, where he was comforting some poor wretches who had their feet almost frozen off. Directly, he came to our door, and one of the men went and told him the state of things. Now, you see, a commander-in-chief might have been justified in being angry that the regulations for the sick had been disobeyed, and have turned away; but he was a nobler sort of man than could do that. He entered the hut, and went up to poor Josiah, and asked him how he was. Josiah told him the he felt as if he was dying, and wanted some one to pray for him. Washington saw that a doctor could do the man no good, and he knelt on the ground by him and prayed. We all knelt down too; we couldn’t help it. An old comrade was dying, away from his home and friends, and there was our general kneeling by him, with his face turned towards heaven, looking, I thought, like an angel’s. Well, he prayed for Heaven to have mercy on the dying man’s soul; to pardon his sins; and to take him to Himself; and then he prayed for us all. Before the prayer was concluded, Josiah’s spirit had fled, and his body was cold and stiff. Washington felt the brow of the poor fellow, and, seeing that his life was out, gave the men directions how to dispose of the corpse, and then left us to visit the other parts of the camp.”

“That was, indeed, noble conduct,” said young Harmar. “Did he ever speak to you afterwards about violating the regulations of the army?” “No,” replied Wilson. “He knew that strict discipline could not be, and should not have been maintained in that camp. He was satisfied if we were true to the cause amid all our sufferings.”
“Praying at the death-bed of a private,” mused Smith aloud. “Well, I might have conjectured what he would do in such a case, from what I saw of him. I wonder if history ever spoke of a greater and better man?”
Young Mr. Harmar here felt inclined to launch out into an elaborate panegyric on the character of Washington, but reflected that it might be out of place, and therefore contented himself with remarking, “We shall ne’er look upon his like again.”
“He was a dear, good man,” remarked Mrs. Harmar.
“Yes,” said old Harmar, “General Washington was the main pillar of the Revolution. As a general, he was vigilant and skilful; but if he had not been anything more, we might have been defeated and crushed by the enemy. He had the love and confidence of the men, on account of his character as a man, and that enabled him to remain firm and full of hope when his countrymen saw nothing but a gloomy prospect.”

144 Sparks, The Writings of George Washington, vol. II, p. 54.

145 The London Chronicle for 1779, Sept. 21-23.

146 Custis, Recollections, p. 493.

147 Sparks, The Writings of George Washington, vol. III.491.

148 Meade, Old Churches, vol. II, p. 492.

149 Solder and Servant Series: Mrs. Alexander Hamilton Witness that George Washington was A Communicant of the Church (Church Missions Publishing Company Feb. 1932), pp. 3-4. General Burgoyne’s soldiers had burned her father’s house at Albany in October, 1777. John Fiske says that “As the poor soldiers marched on the 17th of December [1777] to their winter quarters [at Valley Forge], their route could be traced on the snow by the blood that oozed form bare, frost-bitten feet.” And, “On the morning of the 18th of June, 1778, the rear-guard of the British marched out of Philadelphia, and before sunset the American advance marched in, and took possession of the city.” Apparently the homeless daughter of the colonial general found domicile with her father in what an English writer, the Rt. Hon. Sir George Otto Trevelyan, has said, “bids fair to be the most celebrated encampment in the world’s history.” General Burgoyne afterward expressed to General Schuyler his regret for the burning of his home.”

150 WGW, vol. 17, 1-29-1780.

151 Ibid., vol. 11, 4-12-1778.

152 Israel Evans, A Discourse, Delivered, on the 18th Day of December, 1777.

CHAPTER 20

1     WGW, vol. 26, 6-8-1783, Circular to the States.

2     Bishop William Meade, Old Churches and Families of Virginia, 1857, II, pp. 254-55.

3     Boller, George Washington & Religion, p 15.

4     Ibid., p 18.

5     Ibid., p 17.

6     Moncure D. Conway, The Religion of George Washington in the Open Court, October 24, 1889.

7     Letter to Jared Sparks from Nelly Custis.

8     Meade, Old Churches, vol. II, p.491-492. No. XXIII.

9     E. C. M’Guire, Religious Opinions, p. 411.

10   M’Guire, Religious Opinions, p. 414.

11   Meade, Old Churches, vol. II, p.490ff. No. XXIII.
Further Statements Concerning the Religious Character of Washington and the Question Whether He Was a Communicant or Not. Extract from a letter of the Reverend Dr. Berrian, of New York, to Mrs. Jane Washington, of Mount Vernon, in answer to some inquiries about General Washington during his residence in New York as President of the United States: -

“About a fortnight since I was administering the Communion to a sick daughter of Major Popham, and, after the service was over, happening to speak on this subject, I was greatly rejoiced to obtain the information which you so earnestly desired.

“Major Popham served under General Washington during the Revolutionary War, and I believe he was brought as near to him as their difference of rank would admit, being himself a man of great respectability, and connected by marriage with the Morrises, one of the first families in the country. He has still an erect and military air, and a body but little broken at his advanced age. His memory does not seem to be impaired nor his mind to be enfeebled.”

To the above I can add my own testimony, having in different ways become acquainted with the character of Major Popham, and having visited him about the same time mentioned by Dr. Berrian.
Extract from Major Popham’s Letter to Mrs. Jane Washington, New York, March 14, 1839
My Dear Madam: —You will doubtless be not a little surprised at receiving a letter from an individual whose name may possibly never have reached you; but an accidental circumstance has given me the extreme pleasure of introducing myself to your notice. In a conversation with the Reverend Dr. Berrian a few day since, he informed me that he had lately paid a visit to Mount Vernon, and that Mrs. Washington had expressed a wish to have a doubt removed from her mind, which had long oppressed her, as to the certainty of the General’s having attended the Communion while residing in the city of New York subsequent to the Revolution. As nearly all the remnants of those days are now sleeping with their fathers, it is not very probable that at this late day an individual can be found who could satisfy this pious wish of your virtuous heart, except the writer. It was my great good fortune to have attended St. Paul’s Church in this city with the General during the whole period of his residence in New York as President of the United States. The pew of Chief-Justice Morris was situated next to that of the President, close to whom I constantly sat in Judge Morris’s pew, and I am as confident as a memory now labouring under the pressure of fourscore years and seven can make me, that the President had more than once – I believe I say often-attended at the sacramental table, at which I had the privilege and happiness to kneel with him. And I am aided in my associations by my elder daughter, who distinctly recollects her grandmamma – Mrs. Morris- often mention that fact with great pleasure. Indeed, I am further confirmed in my assurance by the perfect recollection of the President’s uniform deportment during divine service in church. The steady seriousness of his manner, the solemn, audible, but subdued tone of voice in which he read and repeated the responses, the Christian humility which overspread and adorned the native dignity of the saviour of his country, at once exhibited him a pattern to all who had the honour of access to him. It was my good fortune, my dear madam, to have had frequent intercourse with him. It is my pride and boast to have seen him various situations,—in the flush of victory, in the field and in the tent, - in the church and at the altar, always himself, ever the same.

12   Ibid., p 490-491.

13   Alfred Nevin, D.D., LL.D. Editor. Encyclopedia of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America: Including the Northern and Southern Assemblies (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Publishing Co., 1884.) p. 259-263.

14   Johnson, George Washington The Christian, p. 96, “In commemoration of this event the spot has been marked by a sundial, placed there by the Daughters of the American Revolution.”

15   J. I. Good, History of the German Reformed Church in the United States, 1725-1792 (Reading, Pennsylvania, 1899), pp. 616-617.

16   David Hosack, M.D., Memoir of DeWitt Clinton, 1859, p. 183. Johnson, Washington the Christian, p. 86.

17   Harper’s Magazine, 1859, vol. XVIII, p. 293.

18   The Presbyterian Magazine, ed. C. Van Rensselaer, Philadelphia, Pa. February, 1851, vol. 1, p. 71.

19   Andrew M. Sherman, Historic Morristown, New Jersey, 1905, p. 237.

20   M’Guire, Religious Opinions, p. 412.

21   Ibid., pp. 413-14.

22   Presbyterian Magazine, vol. I, p. 569.

23   Ibid., vol. I, p. 569.

24   Boller, George Washington & Religion, p. 14.

25   See www.answers.com/topic/oral-history. Columbia University Press
Oral history, compilation of historical data through interviews, usually tape-recorded and sometimes videotaped, with participants in, or observers of, significant events or times. Primitive societies have long relied on oral tradition to preserve a record of the past in the absence of written histories. In Western society, the use of oral material goes back to the early Greek historians Herodotus (in his history of the Persian Wars) and Thucydides (in his History of the Peloponnesian War), both of whom made extensive use of oral reports from witnesses. The modern concept of oral history was developed in the 1940s by Allan Nevins and his associates at Columbia Univ. In creating oral histories, interviews are conducted to obtain information from different perspectives, many of which are often unavailable from written sources. Such materials provide data on individuals, families, important events, or day-to-day life.
The discipline came into its own in the 1960s and early 70s when inexpensive tape recorders were available to document such rising social movements as civil rights, feminism, and anti–Vietnam War protest. ...By the end of the 20th cent. oral history had become a respected discipline in many colleges and universities. At that time the Italian historian Alessandro Portelli and his associates began to study the role that memory itself, whether accurate or faulty, plays in the themes and structures of oral history. Their published work has since become standard material in the field, and many oral historians now include in their research the study of the subjective memory of the persons they interview.
Bibliography. See S. Caunce, Oral History (1994); V. R. Yow, Recording Oral History (1994), R. Perks and A. Thomson, The Oral History Reader (repr. 1998).
Wikipedia oral history
Oral history is an account of something passed down by word of mouth from one generation to another. Oral history is considered by some historians to be an unreliable source for the study of history. However, oral history is a valid means for preserving and transmitting history. Experience within literate cultures indicates that each time anyone reconstructs a memory, there are changes in the memory, but the core of the story is usually retained. Over time, however, minor changes can accumulate until the story becomes unrecognizable.
A person within a literate culture thus has presuppositions that may falsely affect her judgement of the validity of oral history within preliterate cultures. In these cultures children are usually selected and specially trained for the role of historian, and develop extraordinary memory skills known as eidetic or photographic memory.
Before the development of written language in a given society, oral history is the primary means of conveying information from one generation to the next.
The most common form of this transmission is through storytelling and the recitation of epic poetry, with the stories and poems collectively known as the oral tradition of a people. The combination of this oral tradition with morals and rituals passed down by word of mouth is known as the folklore of a society. Although not as prevalent now as in the past, oral history is still very much alive among many North American native groups....
The most popular examples of oral history are the works of several authors that have, over the span of many hundred years BC, collected folklore which ultimately resulted in these works being included in a collective book known as the Old Testament, The New Testament was created by four different original authors whose slightly differing versions of many biblical events were combined. The Bible was therefore ‘nearly’ entirely created using oral history.
Contemporary oral history is much different. It involves recording or transcribing eyewitness accounts of historical events. ...
One of the most important rules for those collecting oral history is to avoid asking leading questions, for many people will tend to say what they think the historian wants them to say.
Oral historians attempt to record the memories of many different people when researching a given event. Since any given individual may misremember events or distort their account for personal reasons, the historical documentation is considered to reside in the points of agreement of many different sources, rather than the account of any one person.

26   Interestingly, these words at the taking of an oath were required and written for those taking oaths in Virginia during the colonial era as can be seen in Bishop William Meade, Old Churches and Families of Virginia, (Philadelphia: J.B.Lippincott & Co. 1857), vol. II, pp. 41-2. Washington took these vows for the first time when he became a public surveyor:
Oath of Allegiance
“I, A.B., do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to his Majesty King George the Second, so help me God.
“Oath of Abjuration.
“I, A.B., do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure, as impious and heretical, that damnable doctrine and position that Princes excommunicate or deprived by the Pope, or any authority of the See of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever. And I do declared that no foreign Prince, Prelate, Person, State, or Potentate, hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God. The test oath, however, did not conclude with “So help me God.” Apparently the very act of denying transubstantiation was a matter of witness before God:
“Test Oath
“I do declare that I do believe that there is not any transubstantiation in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, or in the Elements of bread and wine at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever.”

27   Encyclopedia oral history, compilation of historical data through interviews, usually tape-recorded and sometimes videotaped, with participants in, or observers of, significant events or times. Primitive societies have long relied on oral tradition to preserve a record of the past in the absence of written histories. In Western society, the use of oral material goes back to the early Greek historians Herodotus (in his history of the Persian Wars) and Thucydides (in his History of the Peloponnesian War), both of whom made extensive use of oral reports from witnesses. The modern concept of oral history was developed in the 1940s by Allan Nevins and his associates at Columbia Univ. In creating oral histories, interviews are conducted to obtain information from different perspectives, many of which are often unavailable from written sources. Such materials provide data on individuals, families, important events, or day-to-day life.
The discipline came into its own in the 1960s and early 70s when inexpensive tape recorders were available to document such rising social movements as civil rights, feminism, and anti–Vietnam War protest. Authors such as Studs Terkel, Alex Haley, and Oscar Lewis have employed oral history in their books, many of which are largely based on interviews. In another important example of the genre, a massive archive covering the oral history of American music has been compiled at the Yale School of Music. By the end of the 20th cent. oral history had become a respected discipline in many colleges and universities. At that time the Italian historian Alessandro Portelli and his associates began to study the role that memory itself, whether accurate or faulty, plays in the themes and structures of oral history. Their published work has since become standard material in the field, and many oral historians now include in their research the study of the subjective memory of the persons they interview.
Bibliography
See S. Caunce, Oral History (1994); V. R. Yow, Recording Oral History (1994), R. Perks and A. Thomson, The Oral History Reader (repr. 1998).
Oral history is an account of something passed down by word of mouth from one generation to another. Oral history is considered by some historians to be an unreliable source for the study of history. However, oral history is a valid means for preserving and transmitting history. Experience within literate cultures indicates that each time anyone reconstructs a memory, there are changes in the memory, but the core of the story is usually retained. Over time, however, minor changes can accumulate until the story becomes unrecognizable.
The information passed on has occasionally shown a surprising accuracy over long periods of time. For example, the Iliad, an epic poem of Homer describing the conquest of Troy, was passed down as oral history from perhaps the 8th century BC, until being recorded in writing by Pisistratos. Nonetheless, factual elements of the Iliad were at least partially validated by the discovery of ruins discovered by Heinrich Schliemann in 1870, thought to be those of the city described in the poem.
The most popular examples of oral history are the works of several authors that have, over the span of many hundred years BC, collected folklore which ultimately resulted in these works being included in a collective book known as the Old Testament. The New Testament was created by four different original authors whose slightly differing versions of many biblical events were combined. The Bible was therefore ‘nearly’ entirely created using oral history.
Oral historians attempt to record the memories of many different people when researching a given event. Since any given individual may misremember events or distort their account for personal reasons, the historical documentation is considered to reside in the points of agreement of many different sources, rather than the account of any one person.

28   Soldier and Servant Series: “Mrs. Alexander Hamilton Witness that George Washington Was A Communicant of the Church” (Hartford: Church Missions Publishing Company, February, 1932), p. 2.

29   This whole account is preserved in “Mrs. Alexander Hamilton, Witness That Washington Was A Communicant Of The Church.”

30   Meade, Old Churches, II, p. 244.

31   Ibid.

32   Johnson, Washington the Christian, p. 58.

33   Meade, Old Churches, II. 495.

34   Sparks, The Writings of George Washington, XII, pp. 405ff.

35   Ibid., p. 409.

36   WGW, vol. 37, 9-14-1799.

37   Ibid., 12-10-1799.

38   Interview with Mary Thompson for Coral Ridge Ministries.

39   Ibid.

40   “Almighty God, whose kingdom is everlasting, and power infinite; Have mercy upon the whole Church, and so rule the heart of thy chosen servant GEORGE our King and Governor, that he (knowing whose Minister he is) may above all things seek thy honour and glory; and that we and all his subjects (duly considering whose authority he hath) may faithfully serve honour and humbly obey him, in thee, and for thee, according to thy blessed word and ordinance, through Jesus Christ our Lord, who with thee, and the Holy Ghost, liveth and reigneth ever one God, world without end. Amen.” [online] http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1662/HC.pdf p. 3.

41   “We beseech thee also to save and defend all Christian Kings, Princes, and Governors; and especially thy servant GEORGE our King, that under him we may be godly and quietly governed: and grant unto his whole council, and to all that are put in authority under him, that they may truly and indifferently minister justice, to the punishment of wickedness and vice, and to the maintenance of thy true Religion and Virtue. Give grace, O heavenly Father, to all Bishops and Curates, that they may both by their life and doctrine set forth thy true and lively word, and rightly and duly administer thy holy Sacraments: And to all thy people give thy heavenly grace; and especially to this Congregation here present....” [online] http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1662/HC.pdf p. 6.

42   “O Lord our heavenly Father, high and mighty, King of kings, Lord of Lords, the only ruler of princes, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers upon earth; Most heartily we beseech thee with thy favour to behold our most gracious Sovereign Lord King GEORGE, and so replenish him with the grace of thy Holy Spirit, that he may always incline to thy will, and walk in thy way: Endue him plenteously with heavenly gifts, grant him in health and wealth long to live, strengthen him that he may vanquish and overcome all his enemies; and finally after this life, he may attain everlasting joy and felicity, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.” [online] http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1662/mp.pdf p. 8.

43   In Johnson, Washington the Christian, p. 75.

44   WGW, vol. 11, 3-1-1778.

45   Lane, Washington Collection, Boston Athenaeum, pp. 30-31.

46   Ibid, p. 31.

47   “The Duty of Standing Fast in Our Spiritual and Temporal Liberties,” A Sermon Preached in Christ Church July 7th 1775 To his Excellency George Washington, Esquire, General and Commander In Chief of all the forces of the Untied English Colonies in North America, this sermon, as a small tribute of respect for many amiable virtues as well in private as in public life, is most humbly and affectionately inscribed by the author.

48   Duché reasoned, Perhaps it may be said, that it is ‘better to die than be Slaves.’ This indeed is a splendid maxim in theory: And perhaps in some instances may be found experimentally true. But where there is the least Probability of an happy Accommodation, surely Wisdom and Humanity call for some Sacrifices to be made, to prevent inevitable Destruction. You, well know, that there is but one invincible Bar to such an Accommodation. Could this be removed, other obstacles might readily be overcome. ‘Tis to you, and you alone your bleeding Country looks, and calls aloud for this Sacrifice. Your Arm alone has Strength sufficient to remove this Bar. May Heaven inspire you with the glorious Resolution of exerting this Strength at so interesting a Crisis, and thus immortalizing Yourself as Friend and Guardian of Your Country! Your penetrating Eye needs no more explicit Language to discern my meaning.

Speaking of his sermon, “The Duty of Standing Fast”, Duche writes: I was pressed to publish this sermon, and reluctantly consented. – From a personal attachment of near twenty years standing, and a high respect for your character, in private, as well as in public life, I took the liberty of dedicating this sermon to you. I had your affectionate thanks for my performance, in a letter, wherein was expressed in the most delicate and obliging terms, your regard for me, and your wishes for a continuance of my friendship and approbation of your conduct. Farther than this I intended not to proceed. My sermon speaks for itself, and wholly disclaims the idea of independency....A very few days after the fatal declaration of independency, I received a letter from Mr. Hancock, sent by express to Germantown, where my family were for the summer season, acquainting me I was appointed Chaplain of the Congress, and desired my attendance next morning at 9 o’clock. Surprised and distressed, as I was, by an event I was not prepared to expect; obliged to give an immediate attendance, without the opportunity of consulting my friends, I easily accepted the appointment. I could have but one motive for accepting this step. I thought the churches in danger ....I then looked upon independency as an expedient and hazardous, or, indeed, thrown out in terrorem, in order to procure some favorable terms....My sudden change of conduct will clearly evince this to have been my idea of the matter. ...independency was the idol they had long wished to set up, and that, rather than sacrifice this, they would deluge their country with blood. From this moment I determined upon my resignation, and, in the beginning of October 1776, sent it in form to Mr. Hancock, after having officiated only two months and three weeks; and from that time, as far as safety would permit, I have been opposed to all their measures. This circumstantial account of my conduct, I think due to the friendship you were obliging as to express for me, and I hope will be sufficient to justify my seeming inconsistencies in the part I have acted....If the arguments made use of in this letter should have so much influence as to engage you in the glorious work, which I have warmly recommended, I shall ever deem my success the highest temporal favour that Providence could grant me. Your interposition and advice, I am confident, would meet with a favourable reception from the authority under which you act. If it should not, you have an infallible recourse still left, negotiate for your country at the head of your army. After all it may appear presumption as an individual to address himself to you on a subject of such magnitude, or to say what measures would best secure the interest and welfare of a whole continent. The friendly and favourable opinion you have always expressed for me, emboldens me to undertake it, and which has greatly added to the weight of this motive; I have been strongly impressed with a sense of duty upon the occasion, which left my conscience uneasy, and my heart afflicted till I fully discharged it. I am no enthusiast; the cause is new and singular to me, but I could not enjoy one moment’s peace till this letter was written, with the most ardent prayers for your spiritual, as well as temporal welfare.

I am your most obedient, And humble Friend and Servant, Jacob Duché

49   Weems, Life of Washington, pp. 187-189, relates the story of a fight that the youthful Washington had with a Mr. Payne, that resulted in his own apology, and need to be forgiven.

“... the benevolence which he so carefully cultivated through life. A singular instance of which we meet with in 1754, and the 22d year of his age.

“He 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 this cold irons in an instant, and it was believed that there would have been murder offhand. 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.”

Lest we think that this was an easy matter for Washington, we need to understand that his soul struggled with the intense emotions that this civil war inevitably produced. Consider his poignant letter to Major Gen. Robert Howe written from West Point on November 20, 1779,

I do not know which rises highest, my indignation or contempt for the Sentiments which pervade the Ministerial writings of this day; these hireling scribblers labour to describe and prove the ingratitude of America in not breaking faith with France, and returning to her Allegiance to the Crown of Great Britain after its having offered such advantageous terms of accommodation. Such Sentiments as these are insulting to common sense and affrontive to every principle of sound policy and common honesty. Why has She offered these terms? because after a bloody contest, carried on with unrelenting and savage fury on her part the issue (which was somewhat doubtful while we stood alone) is now become certain by the aid we derive from our Alliance; notwithstanding the manifest advantages of which, and the blood and treasure which has been spent to resist a tyranny which was unremitted as long as there remained a hope of subjugation we are told with an effrontery altogether unparalleled that every cause of complaint is now done away by the generous offers of a tender parent; that it is ungrateful in us not to accept the proffered terms; and impolitic not to abandon a power (dangerous I confess to her but) which held out a Saving hand to us in the hour of our distress. What epithet does such Sentiments merit? How much should a people possessed of them be despised? From my Soul I abhor them! A Manly struggle, had it been conducted upon liberal ground; an honest confession that they were unequal to conquest, and wished for our friendship, would have had its proper weight; but their cruelties, exercised upon those who have fallen within their power; the wanton depredations committed by themselves and their faithful Allies the Indians; their low and dirty practices of Counterfeiting our money, forging letters, and condescending to adopt such arts as the meanest villain in private life would blush at being charged with has made me their fixed enemy. (WGW, vol. 17, 11-20-1779.)

50   WGW, vol. 26, 6-8-1783.

51   Ibid., vol. 36, Circular to the States.

52   WGW, vol. 34, 12-24-1795.

CHAPTER 21

1     WGW, vol. 29, 2-16-1787. To Thomas Stone.

2     Boller, George Washington & Religion, pp. 22-23. “What, then, are we to say about Washington’s actual religious faith and practices? It is clear that the popular legends about Washington—the valley Forge and the Morristown stories and the innumerable tales of Washington at prayer—must be dismissed as totally lacking in any kind of evidence that would hold up in a court of law.”

3     See the previous chapter, “Did Washington Take Communion?”

4     Littell, George Washington: Christian. Boller writes in George Washington & Religion, pp. 33-34 “In 1835, Bishop White, in answer to Colonel Hugh Mercer’s question as to “whether General Washington was a regular communicant in the Episcopal Church in Philadelphia,” replied: “In regard to the subject of your inquiry, truth requires me to say, that General Washington never received the communion, in the churches of which I am parochial minister. Mrs. Washington was an habitual communicant.”

5     Ibid., p.16.

6     Ibid., pp. 17-18.

7     Ibid., p. 33-34. Dr. James Abercrombie to Origen Bacheler, November 29, 1831, Magazine of American History, XIII (June, 1885), p. 597.

8     Ibid., pp. 33-34, writes “On communion Sundays,” according to Mrs. Custis, “he left the church with me, after the blessing, and returned home, and we sent the carriage back for my grandmother.” This comes from the letter of Nelly Custis to Jared Sparks. Nelly Custis to Jared Sparks in The Writings of George Washington (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1847), vol. XII, pp. 405-408. This can also be found in Johnson, George Washington the Christian, pp. 242-245 and Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution, p. 141.

9     Ibid., p. 33.

10   The Book Of Common Prayer that I have in front of me for this page count is the 1662 edition printed in Oxford by Thomas Baskett, Printer to the University in 1751.

11   This can also be found in Johnson, George Washington the Christian, pp. 242-245 and Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution, p. 141.

12   Nelly Custis to Jared Sparks in The Writings of George Washington, vol. XII, pp. 405-408.

13   Boller, George Washington & Religion, pp. 34-35.

14   Mrs. Alexander Hamilton Witnesses?? that George Washington Was A Communicant of the Church, p. 3. This testimony, however, was not limited to Mrs. Hamilton’s clergyman great-grandson. She also communicated the same facts to General Schuyler Hamilton, who said, “I have it on the absolute authority of my great-grand-mother (Mrs. Alexander Hamilton, 1st.) that George Washington communed in the Episcopal Church; that is sufficient for me, as my great-grand-mother would not have said so unless it was a fact known to her by personal observation.” Ibid., p. 6. The editor of the text adds, “Practically every fact mentioned by Mrs. Hamilton, other than the Service of Holy Communion at St. Paul’s Chapel, is recorded by contemporaneous writers. Mrs. Washington was not at the Inaugural, Washington rode away from Mount Vernon with only two attendants, the Inauguration was at Federal Hall, the procession did walk instead of riding from Wall Street to Fulton; the Service was at St. Paul’s instead of Trinity because Trinity Church had been burned and not yet rebuilt; and Bishop Provoost was Rector of Trinity Parish, of which St. Paul’s was a chapel, as well as Bishop of New York, and so was rightly called ‘the rector’ by Mrs. Hamilton. In the perfect pattern recorded in historical works only one item is missing, the Holy Communion with Washington and his friends as communicants, and that was supplied by Mrs. Alexander Hamilton in the vivid and distinctive conversation reported by her great-grandson.”, pp. 5-6.

15   Littell, George Washington.

16   “For example: WGW, vol. 2, 4-27-1763. To Robert Stewart. “On my honor and the faith of a Christian.” WGW, vol. 29, 2-11-1788. To Benjamin Lincoln. “...our Religion holds out to us such hopes as will, upon proper reflection, enable us to bear with fortitude the most calamitous incidents of life....” WGW, vol. 26, 6-8-1783. “... the Divine Author of our blessed Religion....” WGW, vol. 11, 5-2-1778. “While we are zealously performing the duties of good Citizens and soldiers we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of Religion. To the distinguished Character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to add the more distinguished Character of Christian.”

17   Ibid., vol. 30, 9-28-1789. To Reverend Samuel Langdon, “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 whose divine interposition was so frequently manifested in our behalf. And it is my earnest prayer that we may so conduct ourselves as to merit a continuance of those blessings ....” Ibid., vol. 12, 8-20-1778. To Brig. Gen. Thomas Nelson. “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, but, it will be time enough for me to turn preacher, when my present appointment ceases; and therefore, I shall add no more on the Doctrine of Providence.”

18   Ibid., vol. 35, 9-19-1796. Farewell Address.

19   See the chapter on “George Washington and the Bible.”

20   See the chapter entitled, “George Washington’s God: Religion, Reason and Philosophy”.

21   See the chapter entitled, “Did Washington Avoid the Name of Jesus Christ?”

22   See his first Thanksgiving Proclamation in 1789.

23   See the chapters entitled, “George Washington’s Christian Worldview”, “The Gospel According to George Washington.”

24   See the chapters entitled, “Washington’s Virginia and the Anglican Mission to the Indians.”

25   See the chapter entitled, “George Washington on Heaven and Eternal Life.”

26   See the chapter on “The Sacred Fire of Liberty.”

27   See the chapter on “George Washington’s Clergy and Their Sermons.”

28   See the chapter on “George Washington’s Sermons.”

29   WGW, vol.35, 9-19-1796. Farewell Address; WGW, vol.30, 10-29-1789. To the First Presbytery of the Eastward. See the chapter on “The Spirituality of George Washington.”
Nelly Custis to Jared Sparks in The Writings of George Washington, vol. XII, pp. 405-408.

CHAPTER 22

1     Jackson, Twohig, Diaries of George Washington.(Monday October, 10, 1785).

2     J. I. Good, History of the German Reformed Church in the United States, 1725-1792 (Reading, Pennsylvania, 1899), pp. 616-617. WGW, vol. 33, 9-30-1793, note: “The house occupied by Washington in Germantown is stated by W. S. Baker to have been owned by Col. Isaac Franks. It was on Germantown Avenue, about 6 miles northwest of Independence Hall, in Philadelphia. Reverend J. B. Stoudt states that the President occupied the first floor of Reverend Lebrecht Herman’s parsonage as an office.”

3     WGW, vol. 32, 7-3-1792. To Governor Henry Lee. “Dear Sir: Your letter of the 20th. Ulto.?? was presented to me yesterday by Mr. Williams, [William J. Williams] who, as a professional man, may, or may not be, a luminary of the first magnitude for aught I know to the contrary. But to be frank, and I hope you will not be displeased with me for being so, I am so heartily tired of the attendance which, from one cause or another, I have bestowed on these kind of people, that it is now more than two years since I have resolved to sit no more for any of them; and have adhered to it; except in instances where it has been requested by public bodies, or for a particular purpose (not of the Painters) and could not, without offence, be refused. [WGW note: The portrait was not executed until September, 1794, in Philadelphia. Having been refused a sitting at the above time, Williams offered the Masonic Lodge No. 22 of Alexandria the finished work, if the lodge would request him to make a portrait. The lodge approved this idea Aug. 29, 1793. The resultant portrait was executed in pastel, and is now in the possession of the lodge.] I have been led to make this resolution for another reason besides the irksomeness of sitting, and the time I loose by it, which is, that these productions have, in my estimation, been made use of as a sort of tax upon individuals, by being engraved, and that badly, and hawked, or advertised for Sale. With very great Esteem and regard I am &c.”

4     Jackson, Twohig, Diaries of George Washington (Monday October, 10, 1785)

5     Washington had in his library another anonymous work by Reverend Samuel Seabury: Free Thoughts, on the Proceedings of the Continental Congress, held at Philadelphia, Sept. 5, 1774; wherein their Errors are exhibited, their Reasonings confuted, and the fatal Tendency of their Non-Importation, Non-Exportation, and Non-Consumption Measures, are laid open to the plainest Understandings; and the only Means pointed out for preserving and securing our present happy Constitution: in a Letter to the Farmers, and other Inhabitants of North America in general, and to those of the Province of New-York in particular. By a Farmer. Lane in A Catalogue of the Washington Collection, pp. 177-78 writes, “Prior to this, the colonial interests had been discussed in two pamphlets printed without the name of author or publisher, and one of them, entitled, ‘Free thoughts on the Proceedings of the Continental Congress’ was signed ‘A. W. Farmer,’ and attributed at the time and since to Isaac Wilkins, then an influential member of the loyal Provincial Assembly of New York, and an intimate friend of the rector of the church in Westchester.... A bitter feeling was excited towards the unknown author of these pamphlets, which were extensively and gratuitously circulated among the people of New York and other provinces. Vengeance was denounced upon him, and failing to find him, copies of the pamphlets were gathered and brunt, and in some instances they were tarred, feathered, and nailed to the whipping-post, as an indication of the treatment which their author would receive if he were detected.... But who was the spirited writer that signed himself ‘A. W. Farmer’? Seabury at an earlier day, had entered into a compact with his clerical friends, Dr. Chandler of New Jersey, and Dr. Inglis, rector of Trinity Church, New York, to watch and confute all publications in pamphlets or newspapers that threatened mischief to the Church of England and the British government in America. Out of this compact undoubtedly sprung ‘Free Thoughts on the Proceedings of the Congress at Philadelphia,’ which was from his pen, as were the other publications that immediately followed on the same side of the question.” Beardsley. Life and Correspondence of Samuel Seabury, D.D. the task of defending the cause of the colonies against the attacks of “A.W. Farmer” was confided to Alexander Hamilton, then a youth of eighteen, about to close his studies at King’s College.”

6     Notes from A Revolution That Led To A Church by F. Lee Richards (Cincinnati: Forward Movement Publications, 1990). “The break with England seriously impacted the Anglican Church. The revolution caused the loss of half the clergy, meaning many rural churches had to close.
With peace in 1783, a process to rebuild the Church began, which reached its climax in 1789. Journal of the Proceedings of the Bishops, Clergy and Laity, of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America in a Convention held in the City of Philadelphia, from Tuesday, September 29th to Friday, October 16th, 1789 Printed in Philadelphia: by Hall and Sellers in 1790.

7     From note in Diaries of Washington. “John Lowe (1750—1798), a minor Scottish poet, was born in the Galloway district of Scotland and educated at the University of Edinburgh. He came to Virginia in 1772 and became a tutor in the family of John Augustine Washington. He later ran an academy in Fredericksburg attended by Fielding Lewis’s children. After his ordination at St. George’s Church, Hempstead, Long Island, he became minister at Hanover Parish in King George County, Va.”

8     WGW, vol. 32, 10-20-1792. To Dr. William Davies Shipley.

9     Ibid., vol. 37, last Will and testament.

10   This occurred in Scotland by “non-juror” bishops. To be a “non-juror,” as we have already noted, meant that such a bishop was one who had not taken an oath of loyalty to William and Mary, the Protestant monarchs of the House of Orange. who ascended to the English throne in 1688. concluding the “Glorious Revolution.” What were the principles of the non-jurors? Thomas Lathbury, A History of the Nonjurors: Their Controversies and Writings; With Remarks on Some of the Rubrics in the Book of Common Prayer (London: William Pickering, 1845), pp. 419-20, says, “As William supported Presbytery in Scotland, because the Episcopalians refused to recognize him as their Sovereign, the Presbyterians have no room for boasting that their system was adopted in preference to Episcopacy. It certainly was not chosen on account of its purity, as they choose to imagine or to assert, but because King William found them more ready to render him their support, than the Bishops and Clergy. Whether the refusal of the latter was a blot upon their memory, posterity will decide. At all events, they were honest in their course, for it led to the loss of all their worldly goods. The bishop of Edinburgh’s reply was frank and open. He had not expected any such Revolution, and he had the courage to say so. Perceiving that the Bishops and Clergy would not support him, the King threw himself into the arms of the Presbyterians.” He adds on pp. 423-24, “All the Clergy, who refused to take the Oath of Allegiance to the new Sovereigns, were removed from their Parishes; and “from their refusal, they soon acquired the appellation of Nonjurors.”. . . Such Episcopal Clergymen as took the Oath of Allegiance, and acknowledged Presbytery as the only legal establishment, were allowed by the State to retain their churches, and also to be admitted, with the Presbyterian clergy, to a share in the Ecclesiastical government. To assent to Presbytery, as established by law, did not involve any opinion respecting its Scriptural or primitive character, which no Episcopalian could possibly admit. Besides, as no form of Prayer was imposed by the Presbyterians, the Clergy could proceed in the management of public worship, nearly in the same manner as previous to the Revolution. Accordingly a considerable number of the Episcopal Clergy complied, and continued in their respective Parishes.”

11   Search P.G.W. on line under John C. Ogden. None of his letters were personally answered by Washington and several were not answered.

12   See chapter 2 “Deism Defined: Shades of Meaning, Shading the Truth”

13   See chapter 11 “The Sacred Fire of Liberty”

14   Reverend Ogden wrote to Washington 7 times. George Washington’s Secretary Tobias Lear responded to one on behalf of Washington. The rest were left unaddressed. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-in/query/P?mgw:14:./temp/~ammem_3u3s::

15   First, there was the Protestant-Catholic sensitivities. Seabury had been ordained by the Protestant Bishops who had been most sympathetic to the Roman Catholic heir to the British throne. Second, Seabury’s ordination amounted to a new connection with post-wWar England, establishing the American Episcopate, which Virginia and Washington and the Committee on Religion had resisted. Third, Bishop Seabury’s ordination by the non-jurors appeared to sever a direct connection with Anglican ordination, which was not consistent with the methodical approach of George Washington. If there was eventually going to be a Bishop in America, Anglicans, including Washington, knew that the genius of the Anglican Church’s authenticity required that they take the necessary steps to assure the appropriate connection with the British bishops. Fourth, it put an Anglican bishop in New England, which meant that episcopacy would soon be moving south to Virginia. And there were even more disquieting issues at work for Washington and fellow low churchmen caused by the ordination of Bishop Seabury.

16   The early mid 1800’s saw a renewed emphasis upon the Episcopalian doctrine of apostolic succession. Some representative works include: John Henry Hopkins, The Primitive Church, Compared with The Protestant Episcopal Church of the Present Day: Being an Examination of the Ordinary Objections against the Church, in doctrine, worship, and government, designed for popular use; with a dissertation on sundry points of theology and practice, connected with the subject of episcopacy, etc. (Burlington: Vernon Harrington:, 1836); Reverend Wm. Ingraham Kip, The Double Witness of the Church, (New York: D. Appleton & Co, 1843); Reverend A. P. Perceval, An Apology For the Doctrine Of Apostolic Succession: With An Appendix On The English Orders (New York: Protestant Episcopal Tract Society, 1839); W. D. Snodgrass, Discourses on the Apostolical Succession (Troy, N.Y.: Stedman & Redfield, 1844).

17   In an anonymously published treatise by Bishop Seabury that Washington had in his library, we find his theological application of apostolic succession to the Presbyterian and Independent Churches that surrounded him in New England: An Address to the Ministers and Congregations of the Presbyterian and Independent Persuasions in the United States of America. By a Member of the Episcopal Church [by Samuel Seabury], pp. 40-41, 49, 51.

The Presbyterians and Independents departed from the church, making a schism in it. It is therefore reasonable they should make the first advances towards a reunion. I know not how this reason can be evaded but on two grounds: one is justifying the schism ; the other is, the at the local situation of both parties in this country takes away the imputation of schism. .... I conclude again, that those presbyters who separated from the church of England did not, and could not bring off with them the apostolical power of ordination, because they never had received it. Their separation made them schismatics, but gave them no new ecclesiastical powers. ... “Do you then,” you will ask, “unchurch us all? Have our congregations no authorized ministers? No valid sacraments?” I answer, I unchurch nobody. If you were true churches before I wrote, you are so still. If you were not, all the bustle you can make will do you no good. Quietness and patience will be the best palliation for your disease—a radical cure can only be effected by your return to the church from which you departed. You ask, “have we no authorized ministers? No valid sacraments?” To these questions, I fear, I shall return disagreeable answers. You have ministers of the people, I confess; and if I may be allowed to make a supposition (and I have made a good many without any leave at all) I must suppose that such as your ministry is, such are your sacraments. These, in short, are matters that neither concern me, nor my argument, any farther than as they influence my benevolence in your behalf. To be a member of the true church of Christ is a matter of important concern to every body. I have pointed out this true church to you; into it you can enter; and in it you will have, in your own judgment, an authorized ministry, and valid sacraments. I hope you will avail yourselves of this information and then, and not till then, all your doubts and misgiving will be at an end.

18   As the American Episcopalian Church took hold, several defenses of its doctrine of apostolic succession appeared. Here is a representative list from the 1830-40’s: John Henry Hopkins, The Primitive Church, Compared with The Protestant Episcopal Church of the Present Day: Being an Examination of the Ordinary Objections against the Church, in doctrine, worship, and government, designed for popular use; with a dissertation on sundry points of theology and practice, connected with the subject of episcopacy, etc. (Burlington: Vernon Harrington:, 1836); Reverend Wm. Ingraham Kip, The Double Witness of the Church, (New York: D. Appleton & Co, 1843); Reverend A. P. Perceval, An Apology For the Doctrine Of Apostolic Succession: With An Appendix On The English Orders (New York: Protestant Episcopal Tract Society, 1839); W. D. Snodgrass, Discourses on the Apostolical Succession (Troy, N.Y.: Stedman & Redfield, 1844).

19   Reverend Mason Gallagher,. A Chapter of Unwritten History. The Protestant Episcopacy of the Revolutionary Patriots Lost and Restored. A Centennial Offering. Philadelphia: Reformed Episcopal Rooms, 1883.

20   Ibid., Preface. But compare here, Lathworthy’s description of the latitudinarianism of Tillotson and Burnet, p. 156: “That many of the clergy of the Revolution [i.e., the British Glorious Revolution] were latitudinarian in their opinions, is, as we have seen, admitted by Mr. Hallam, than whom a more unexceptionable witness could not be adduced. This charge is strongly urged by Hickes against Burnet. In his sermon, Burnet had said, that Tillotson left men to use their own discretion in small matters. Hickes, commenting on this assertion, states, that the Archbishop was accustomed to administer the Lord’s Supper to some persons sitting, and that especially a certain lady of Dr. Owen’s congregation was so accustomed to receive it in the chapel of Lincoln’s Inn: that he walked around the chapel, administering the elements first to those who were seated in their pews, and then to those who were kneeling at the rails, not, however, going within himself, but standing without. This was a direct breach of the order of the Church, and may be regarded as an evidence of the extent of latitudinarian practices.” It seems that Tillotson did not stand alone in this particular: For Hickes asserts, that the Bishop of St. Asaph adopted the same practice, at Kidder’s church, in administering the Lord’s Supper to Dr. Bates, and other nonconformists. When we contemplate such proceedings of the part of men high in station in the Church, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that the latitudinarian principles which prevailed to a considerable extent after the Revolution, did really place the Church in some danger. By the good providence of God, however, the Clergy in general were actuated by purer notions: and within a few years the danger was averted.

21   WGW, vol. 29, 8-15-1787. To Marquis de Lafayette.

22   Reverend Mason Gallagher, A Chapter of Unwritten History. The Protestant Episcopacy of the Revolutionary Patriots Lost and Restored. A Centennial Offering, (Philadelphia: Reformed Episcopal Rooms, 1883), Preface.

23   Ibid.

24   WGW, vol. 35, 3-2-1797.

25   We discussed this incident in the Chapter “Shadow or Substance?”

26   The theological system behind the Low Church was developed especially by English Bishop Gilbert Burnet. To see how Washington’s theology comports with the Latitudinarian system, please see the appendix entitled “George Washington and Latitudinarianism.”

27   In 1793, he solicited, under the most respectable patronage, the office of Treasurer of the Mint; but General Washington, in consequence of a resolution, which he had formed not to appoint two persons from the same State as officers in any one department, felt obliged to deny the application. He subsequently took an office in the Bank of the United States, but found it so totally uncongenial with his taste, that he resigned it, after the labour of a single day... When he [Abercrombie] communicated his wish to the Bishop and some Clergy, they warmly seconded it; and he was according examined, and ordained Deacon in St. Peter’s Church, Philadelphia, December 29, 1793. His preference was for a country parish; but his many friends in the city chose to detain him there, and in compliance with their wishes, he became Assistance Minister of Christ Church and St. Peter’s in June, 1794. On the 28th of December following, he received Priest’s Orders from Bishop White. In 1797, he was elected a member of the American Philosophical Society.
William B. Sprague, D.D. Annals of the American Pulpit (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1861) p. 50

28   Boller, George Washington & Religion, pp. 17-18.

29   See appendix entitled “George Washington and the Anglican Theology Latitudinarianism.”

30   But compare here, Lathworthy’s description of the latitudinarianism of Tillotson and Burnet, p. 156: “That many of the clergy of the Revolution [i.e., the British Glorious Revolution] were latitudinarian in their opinions, is, as we have seen, admitted by Mr. Hallam, than whom a more unexceptionable witness could not be adduced. This charge is strongly urged by Hickes against Burnet. In his sermon, Burnet had said, that Tillotson left men to use their own discretion in small matters. Hickes, commenting on this assertion, states, that the Archbishop was accustomed to administer the Lord’s Supper to some persons sitting, and that especially a certain lady of Dr. Owen’s congregation was so accustomed to receive it in the chapel of Lincoln’s Inn: that he walked around the chapel, administering the elements first to those who were seated in their pews, and then to those who were kneeling at the rails, not, however, going within himself, but standing without. This was a direct breach of the order of the Church, and may be regarded as an evidence of the extent of latitudinarian practices. It seems that Tillotson did not stand alone in this particular: For Hickes asserts, that the Bishop of St. Asaph adopted the same practice, at Kidder’s church, in administering the Lord’s Supper to Dr. Bates, and other nonconformists. When we contemplate such proceedings of the part of men high in station in the Church, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that the latitudinarian principles which prevailed to a considerable extent after the Revolution, did really place the Church in some danger. By the good providence of God, however, the Clergy in general were actuated by purer notions: and within a few years the danger was averted.”

31   See footnote 10 of this chapter.

32   This summary is based on, “A Revolution That Created A Church.”

33   Normally, except for the consecration of Samuel Seabury by the Scottish non-juror bishops.

34   Jackson, Twohig, Diaries of George Washington, June 17, 1787. p. 224.

35   April 1790 Sunday 11th. Went to Trinity Church in the forenoon and [wrote] several private letters in the afternoon Jackson, Twohig, Diaries of George Washington, 4-11-1790, p. 114

“Thursday 15th. Returned the above Act (presented to me on Tuesday) to the House of Representatives in Congress in which it originated with my approbation & signature. The following Company dined here to day—viz— The Vice President & Lady, the Chief Justice of the United States & Lady, Mr. Izard & Lady, Mr. Dalton and Lady, Bishop Provost & Lady, Judge Griffin & Lady Christina, Colo. Griffin & Lady, Colo. Smith & Lady, The Secretary of State, Mr. Langdon Mr. King, & Major Butler. Mrs. King was invited but was indisposed.” Diaries, 4-15-1790, p.115..

36   Washington’s words concerning Christian charity to clergy was not only given to the Episcopalians. He also wrote to the Presbyterians about the conduct that demonstrates that men are “true Christians.”
WGW, vol. 30, 5-26-1786. Note to the General Assembly of Presbyterian Churches in the U.S. New York, May 26, 1789.

“On May 26 the general assembly of Presbyterian churches in the United States, meeting in Philadelphia, sent an address to Washington. His answer, which is undated in the “Letter Book,” follows immediately after the copy of the address. In it he wrote in part:

“While I reiterate the professions of my dependence upon Heaven as the source of all public and private blessings; I will observe that the general prevalence of piety, philanthropy, honesty, industry, and oeconomy seems, in the ordinary course of human affairs, particularly necessary for advancing and confirming the happiness of our country. While all men within our territories are protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of their consciences; it is rationally to be expected from them in return, that they will be emulous of evincing the sanctity of their professions by the innocence of their lives and the beneficence of their actions; for no man, who is profligate in his morals, or a bad member of the civil community, can possibly be a true Christian, or a credit to his own religious society.

“I desire you to accept my acknowledgments for your laudable endeavours to render men sober, honest, and good Citizens, and the obedient subjects of a lawful government.”
WGW, vol. 3, 9-14-1775, To COLONEL BENEDICT ARNOLD, “I also give it in Charge to you to avoid all Disrespect to or Contempt of the Religion of the Country and its Ceremonies. Prudence, Policy, and a true Christian Spirit, will lead us to look with Compassion upon their Errors without insulting them. While we are contending for our own Liberty, we should be very cautious of violating the Rights of Conscience in others, ever considering that God alone is the Judge of the Hearts of Men, and to him only in this Case, they are answerable. Upon the whole, Sir, I beg you to inculcate upon the Officers and Soldiers, the Necessity of preserving the strictest Order during their March through Canada; to represent to them the Shame, Disgrace and Ruin to themselves and Country, if they should by their Conduct, turn the Hearts of our Brethren in Canada against us. And on the other Hand, the Honours and Rewards which await them, if by their Prudence and good Behaviour, they conciliate the Affections of the Canadians and Indians, to the great Interests of America, and convert those favorable Dispositions they have shewn into a lasting Union and Affection. Thus wishing you and the Officers and Soldiers under your Command, all Honour, Safety and Success.”
Ibid., vol., 35, 3-3-1797. To THE CLERGY OF DIFFERENT DENOMINATIONS RESIDING IN AND NEAR THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, “Believing, as I do, that Religion and Morality are the essential pillars of Civil society, I view, with unspeakable pleasure, that harmony and brotherly love which characterizes the Clergy of different denominations, as well in this, as in other parts of the United States; exhibiting to the world a new and interesting spectacle, at once the pride of our Country and the surest basis of universal Harmony.

“That your labours for the good of Mankind may be crowned with success; that your temporal enjoyments may be commensurate with your merits; and that the future reward of good and faithful Servants may be your’s, I shall not cease to supplicate the Divine Author of life and felicity.”
His words concerning Roman Catholics

United States, March 15, 1790.
Note: From the “Letter Book” copy in the Washington Papers.

“...may the members of your Society in America, animated alone by the pure spirit of christianity, and still conducting themselves as the faithful subjects of our free government, enjoy every temporal and spiritual felicity.”

37   See letters to Reformed Churches on these dates: November 3, 1780. November 16, 1782. June 2, 1779. November 27, 1783. June 28, 1782. June 30, 1782. November 10, 1783. June 11, 1789. October 9, 1789. December 24, 1789.

38   Boller, p. 35.

39   See the warmth and intimacy of their “reciprocal prayers” in the chapter on “George Washington’s and Prayer.”

40   Washington’s diary references to William White occur only after his presidency, when he returned to Philadelphia to visit:
“November 5, 1798. Mr. White went away before breakfast. I set out on a journey to Phila. about 9 Oclock with Mr. Lear my Secretary— was met at the Turnpike by a party of horse & escorted to the Ferry at George Town where I was recd. with Military honors. Lodged at Mr. T. Peters. [GW was going to Philadelphia to make plans for the provisional army then being raised in case of an invasion by the French. ...] 9. Breakfasted in Wilmington & dined & lodged at Chester—waitg. at the latter the return of an Exps. At this place was met by sevl. Troops of Phila. horse.
10. With this Escort I arrived in the City about 9 oclock & was recd. by Genl. McPhersons Blues & was escorted to my lodgings in 8th. Street (Mrs. Whites) by them & the Horse....
11, 12, & 13. Dined at my Lodgings receiving many Visits. Weather clear & pleasant.
19. Do. at Doctr. Whites—Bishop. Raining.”

41   Washington would not discuss politics with a foreign visitor. From the note on May 19, 1798, we learn: Julian Ursyn Niemcewicz (1758— 1841) visited Mount Vernon on 2 June. Niemcewicz was a Polish literary and political figure who came to America in 1797 ...President and Mrs. Washington came to the Law home on 23 May for a two-day stay while Niemcewicz was still there. Niemcewicz described this event: “The whole time he [George Washington] was courteous, polite, even attentive; he talked very little, now and then on agriculture, on natural history, on all that one would wish, except politics, on which he maintains an absolute silence and reserve.” The Diaries of George Washington, vol. 6. Donald Jackson, and Dorothy Twohig, ed. The Papers of George Washington. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1979.

42   Reverend Mason Gallagher, A Chapter of Unwritten History. The Protestant Episcopacy of the Revolutionary Patriots Lost and Restored. A Centennial Offering, (Philadelphia: Reformed Episcopal Rooms, 1883). Low Churchman and Reformed Episcopalian, Reverend Gallagher put is this way: “The Seabury leaven of Sacerdotalism, exclusive Divine right and sacramental grace, was allowed admittance. The Prayer Book of 1785 was essentially changed. The Romish alterations of Elizabeth and Charles were reintroduced. The leaven has spread through the lump, and most significantly though White survived Seabury a generation, the latter has thoroughly supplanted the patriotic Low Churchman, as the acknowledged Father of the Church, among those who control and direct its affairs, and wield predominating influence therein. While the power of the laity was in the ascendant, the Church was Protestant and Scriptural in its services. As the priestly influence became more general the Communion became naturally more sacerdotal, sacramental and exclusive. But these wise patriots were over powered by the insane passion for uniformity, and a hollow, unscriptural unity, which has been the bane of the Protestant Episcopal Church.”

43   PGW, vol. 2: 423-425. To the Baptist of Virginia.

44   See for example, WGW, vol. 3, 9-14-1775 to Col. Benedict Arnold.

45   Boller, George Washington and Religion, p. 90-91. “Bird Wilson, in reconsidering his views on Washington’s religion, finally decided that these were sufficient to characterize Washington as such. Washington’s “aid given for the support of the Church, in his own parish—the correct sentiments on religion contained in several of his public addresses—the unimpeached sincerity of his character, manifested through life, and forbidding a suspicion that those sentiments were not really entertained—and his attendance on the public services of the house of God, furnish satisfactory proof of his respect for religion and of his belief in Christianity. . . .” On the other hand, if to believe in the divinity and resurrection of Christ and his atonement for the sins of man and to participate in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper are requisites for the Christian faith, then Washington, on the evidence which we have examined, can hardly be considered a Christian, except in the most nominal sense. “That Washington was a professing Christian,” declared Dr. James Abercrombie, “is evident from his regular attendance in our church; but, Sir, I cannot consider any man as a real Christian who uniformly disregards an ordinance so solemnly enjoined by the divine Author of our holy religion, and considered as a channel of divine grace.”

One may indeed define Christianity broadly enough (as it is increasingly defined In the United States today) to include Washington within the fold; but this is to place him at a considerable distance from the kind of Christianity which the pietists are talking about when they claim Washington as one of their own. If Washington was a Christian, he was surely a Protestant of the most liberal persuasion. He was, as Bird Wilson lamented in his Albany sermon, more of a “Unitarian” than anything else in his apparent lack of doctrinal convictions.
p. 92. There is every reason to believe, from a careful analysis of religious references in his private correspondence, that Washington’s reliance upon a Grand Designer along Deist lines was as deep-seated and meaningful for his life as, say, Ralph Waldo Emerson’s serene confidence in a Universal Spirit permeating the ever-shifting appearances of the everyday world.
p. 93. Twentieth-century scholars customarily lump Washington with Jefferson, Franklin, and Paine as a Deist and let it go at that. But Washington was not a Jefferson or a Franklin or a Paine, and his religious views were by no means identical with theirs. Broadly speaking, of course, Washington can be classified as a Deist. But this is to tell us little of a specific nature about his religious opinions, which were, as a matter of fact, somewhat at variance with those of Jefferson, Franklin, and Paine.
p. 100. No matter what the odds, the human struggle was always worthwhile for Washington. Like the old-fashioned predestinarian Calvinist (and like many modern secular determinists), Washington was stimulated and energized psychologically by the conviction that the course of events followed an orderly pattern and was not the product of mere blind, senseless chance.

The misinterpretation of Washington’s guarded silence was not a unique phenomenon, as can be seen by a consideration of the debate caused by his careful response to the Philadelphia clergy’s letter.
P. 81. So frequently has this passage been cited by freethinkers as evidence of Washington’s anticlerical bent, as well as his lack of Christian orthodoxy, that the entire episode to which Jefferson referred somewhat vaguely is worth examining with some care.
The reason this is not true is the address itself, and second, Green’s own refutation of the story. The address says, p. 81, “in our special character as ministers of the gospel of Christ, we are more immediately bound to acknowledge the countenance which you have uniformly given to his holy religion.” Moreover, Green wrote, p. 83-84,
In all of the “consultations of the clergy,” Green insisted, not a “single syllable” was uttered regarding Washington’s failure to state publicly his commitment to the Christian faith. Any such “allegation,” declared Green, would have been “palpably false,” since, in his opinion, there was never any doubt as to Washington’s orthodoxy. Bishop White,
Moreover, Green went on to say, “has assured us, that he has no trace of recollection that anything was said in the two meetings of the clergy, relative to the neglect of the President to declare his belief on the subject of divine revelation . . . .” The contents of the address itself, finally Green emphasized, reveal that there was no intention of forcing Washington to declare whether he was a Christian or not.
p. 84 Green also wrote, that in penning the address, it was in the mind of the writer (he knows not that it was in any other mind) that a full and fair opportunity should be given him to speak, on leaving the chair of state, as he had spoken of quitting his military command, and that the address was framed with some reference to this subject.
Pp. 85-86. Washington was in no sense an infidel retorted Green.

The writer of the address most assuredly never did think, or say, that General Washington was an infidel; but he has said, and he says now, that it would have given him gratification, if that great man had thought proper, during his presidency or at its close, to speak out again, as he had once spoken before—spoken in such a manner as not to permit the enemies of revealed truth to use even his silence, for the vile purposes for which they now endeavour to employ it. What were the considerations which...”

46   p. 66. Bishop William White. “I knew no man who seemed so carefully to guard against the discoursing of himself or of his acts, or of any thing pertaining to him; and it has occasionally occurred to me, when in his company, that if a stranger to his person were present, he would never have known, from anything said by the President, that he was conscious of having distinguished himself in the eyes of the world. His ordinary behaviour, although unexceptionably courteous, was not such as to encourage intrusion nor what might be in his mind.”

47   this is a repeat of the above. Is that intentional? p. 66. Bishop William White. “I knew no man who seemed so carefully to guard against the discoursing of himself or of his acts, or of any thing pertaining to him; and it has occasionally occurred to me, when in his company, that if a stranger to his person were present, he would never have known, from anything said by the President, that he was conscious of having distinguished himself in the eyes of the world. His ordinary behaviour, although unexceptionably courteous, was not such as to encourage intrusion non what might be in his mind.”

CHAPTER 23

1     WGW, vol. 32, 1-27-1793, to the members of the New Church in Baltimore.

2     “How the Founders built a nation on religion, philosophy,” Review by Will Morrisey of Michael Novak’s On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense at the American Founding (January 28-February 3, 2002 National Weekly Edition, The Washington Times, 28.

3     Sawyer, Washington, vol. I p. 49-50.

4     James Hutson, Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, p. 4. (Library of Congress distributed by University Press of New England, 1998) p. 4.

5     Washington Irving, The Life of George Washington, vol. I—cited by Character & Influence, p. 31.

6     Lillback, Proclaim Liberty, pp.16-24.

7     WGW, vol. 26, 6-8-1783, Circular to the States.

8     We explore this more fully in the chapter “Minds of Peculiar Structure.”

9     George Washington wrote, “I now make it my earnest prayer that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in His holy protection . . . that He would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy nation.” George Washington, “Circular to State Governments,” June 8, 1783, Writings (New York: The Library of America, 1997), 526.

10   Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia 1979, vol. 18, p. 249. Also, for more on this see Chapter 2, “Deism Defined: Shades of Meaning, Shading the Truth.”

11   Benjamin Franklin, Reasons Against Satirizing Religion, December 13, 1757. See http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=473

12   If one reads Paine’s 1776 classic, Common Sense, he may note biblical references and allusions (in a positive way). Paine grew up in England and was a Quaker. His anti-Christian bias did not fully emerge until decades later. For example, here are a few sentences from Common Sense: “But where, say some, is the king of America? I’ll tell you, friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the royal brute of Great Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the Word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king.” (Bruce Frohnen, ed., The American Republic: Primary Sources (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2002), 188.).

13   WGW, vol. 25, 9-18-1792.

14   Ibid., see note.

15   Ibid.

16   Ibid.

17   WGW, vol. 28, 8-18-1786.

18   Edwards, Tryon, The New Dictionary of Thoughts – A Cyclopedia of Quotations, (Garden City, NY, Hanover House, 1852; revised and enlarged by C.H. Catrevas, et al. 1891, The Standard Book Company 1963), p.46

19   Blackstone, Commentaries, vol. 1, 38.

20   Ibid., 41.

21   Ibid., vol. 1, 42.

22   Ibid.

23   Rupert Hughes, George Washington The Savior of the States 1777-1781 (New York: William Morrow & Company) 1930. pp. 398-399. The footnote to this text reads:

“Lee Papers, IV., p. 31. In a letter to Dr. Rush, Sept. 26, 1779 he says: “You and many others accuse me of want of religion, there never was a greater mistake – to convince you I send you my proem, from Cicero de legibus – I am perswaded that no Society can exist without religion, and I think the Christian; unincumbered of its sophistications, is the most excellent and [of course] of a divine nature as comprehending the most divine system of which but at the same time, I own, I quarrel with the tediousness and impertinence of the liturgies of the various sects, which so far from being the support are the ruin of all religion – as to the dogmas they are many of ‘em not only absurd but impious as they are dishonorable to the Godhead or visible rule and moderator of the infinity of worlds which surround us I therefore cannot help esteeming myself the [champion] vindicator rather than the Denyer and Blasphemer of the Almighty.” (Lee Papers, III, pp. 373-4.

24   Although Lee could be classified as a skeptic, he seems to long for genuine Christianity lived out without all the interdenominational infighting.

In his project for an ideal state, a military colony, General Lee says: “I speak to men and soldiers, who wish and are able to assert and defend the rights of humanity; and, let me add, to vindicate the character of God Almighty, and real Christianity, which have been so long dishonored by sectarists of every kind and complexion; catholics, church of England men, Presbyterians, and Methodists. I could wish, therefore, that the community of soldiers (who are to be all Christians) should establish one common form of worship, with which every member must acquiesce, at least in attendance of divine worship, and the observation of the prescribed ceremonies; but this so contrived as not to shock any an who ahs been bred up in any of the different sects. for which reason, let all expositions of the scripture, and all dogmas, be fore ever banished. Let it be sufficient that he acknowledges the existence, providence, and goodness of God Almighty; the he reverences Jesus Christ: but let the question never be asked, whether he considers Jesus Christ as only a divine person, commissioned by God for divine purposes, as the son of God, or as God himself. These sophistical subtleties only lead to a doubt of the whole; let it be sufficient therefore that whether a real God or only a divinely inspired mortal; for which reason to prevent the impertinence and ill consequences of dogmatizing, no professional priests of any sort whatever shall be admitted in the community. but still I am of opinion, that a sacred order, or hierarchy, should be established, and in the following manner: that this hierarchy are not to be expositiors of the divine law, which ought to be understood by every member of common capacity; but as the servitors, or administrators of the solemn ceremonies to be observed in the worship of the Supreme Being, of his Son, or missionary.” Lee Papers, III, p. 325.

25   WGW, vol. 35, 12-7-1796, 8th Annual Address to Congress.

26   Ibid., vol. 35, Farewell Address.

27   Ibid., vol. 30, 6-22-1788.

28   Ibid., vol. 30, 6-25-1788.

29   Ibid., 1-8-1790

30   Northwest Ordinance, Article III in The Annals of America, vol. 3, 194-195.

31   WGW vol. 32, 6-22-1792.

32   Ibid., 10-20-1792.

33   WGW, vol. 32, 1-27-1793.

34   Ibid., vol. 3, 9-14-1775.

35   Ibid., vol. 5, 7-9-1776.

36   Lillback, Proclaim Liberty, pp.15-24.

37   PGW, George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799: Series 2 Letterbooks, George Washington to Savannah, Georgis, Hebrew Congregation, May, 1790 image 147 of 166.

38   WGW, vol. 30, Proposed Address to Congress.

39   Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 2 p 253

CHAPTER 24

1     Sparks, ed., The Writings of George Washington, vol. XII, 152.

2     Charles Francis Adams, ed., Letters of John Adams—-Addressed to His Wife (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1841), vol. I, 23-24.

3     Journal of the Proceedings of Congress, 1774 (Philadelphia: Printed for the Library Company of Philadelphia, 1974), September 10, 1774, see 30-33.

4     Ibid.

5     Ibid.

6     WGW, vol. 3, 6-15-1772

7     Their instructions will be found spread on the Journals of the Continental Congress of March 10, 1774.

8     John Rhodehame, ed., George Washington: Writings (New York: The Library of America, 1997), 187-189.

9     WGW, vol. 3, 9- 4-1775.

10   WGW, vol. 4, 11- 5-1775.

11   Benjamin Hart, “The Wall That Protestantism Built: The Religious Reasons for the Separation of Church and State,” Policy Review (Washington, D.C.: Heritage Foundation, Fall 1988), 44.

12   WGW, vol. 31, 3-15-1790, and Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution p. 121.

13   William Barclay Allen, ed., George Washington - A Collection (Indianapolis: Liberty Classics, Liberty Fund, Inc., 1988), 547-548.

14   Sparks, The Writings of George Washington, vol. IX, p. 262.

15   For a discussion of Christianity’s role in the establishment of religious liberty in America see, Peter A. Lillback, Proclaim Liberty.

16   WGW, vol. 31, 3-1-1790. and. Boller, , George Washington & Religion p. 182.

17   Sparks, The Writings of George Washington, vol. XII, p. 154.

18   WGW, vol. 30, 4-30-1789.

19   Ibid., vol.24, 6-28-1782.

20   Ibid., vol. 26, 4-18-1783. General Orders.
Ibid., vol. 28, 3-30-1785. To Lucretia Wilhemina Van Winter, “At best I have only been an instrument in the hands of Providence, to effect, with the aid of France and many virtuous fellow Citizens of America, a revolution which is interesting to the general liberties of mankind, and to the emancipation of a country which may afford an Asylum, if we are wise enough to pursue the paths wch. lead to virtue and happiness, to the oppressed and needy of the Earth. Our region is extensive, our plains are productive, and if they are cultivated with liberallity and good sense, we may be happy ourselves, and diffuse happiness to all who wish to participate.”
Ibid., vol. 29, 4-25-1788. To Marquis De Chastellux, “Hitherto there has been much greater unanimity in favour of the proposed government than could have reasonably been expected. Should it be adopted (and I think it will be) America will lift up her head again and in a few years become respectable among the nations. It is a flattering and consolatory reflection, that our rising Republics have the good wishes of all the Philosophers, Patriots, and virtuous men in all nations: and that they look upon them as a kind of Asylum for mankind. God grant that we may not disappoint their honest expectations, by our folly or perverseness.”
Ibid., vol. 29, 5-28-1788. To Reverend Francis Adrian Vanderkemp. “...I take the speediest occasion to well-come your arrival on the American shore. I had always hoped that this land might become a safe and agreeable Asylum to the virtuous and persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong; but I shall be the more particularly happy, if this Country can be, by any means, useful to the Patriots of Holland, with whose situation I am peculiarly touched, and of whose public virtue I entertain a great opinion.”
Ibid., vol. 30, 8-29-1788. To Joseph Mandrillon. “We flatter ourselves your patriotic wishes and sanguine hopes respecting the political felicity of this Country, will not prove abortive. We hope, from the general acquiescence of the States so far, with small exceptions, in the proposed Constitution, that the foundation is laid for the enjoyment of much purer civil liberty and greater public happiness than have hitherto been the portion of Mankind. And we trust the western World will yet verify the predictions of its friends and prove an Asylum for the persecuted of all Nations.”
Ibid., vol. 30, 8-31-1788. To Thomas Jefferson. “...this will become the great avenue into the Western Country; a country which is now settling in an extraordinarily rapid manner, under uncommonly favorable circumstances, and which promises to afford a capacious asylum for the poor and persecuted of the Earth.”
Ibid., vol. 30, 9-27-1788. To Reverend Francis Adrian Vanderkepm. “Sir. The letter with which you was pleased to favor me dated the 29th. of Augt. came duly to hand, and afforded me the pleasure of hearing that you had made a purchase agreeable to your wishes in the vicinity of Esopus. I sincerely hope that it may prove an agreeable retreat, and a happy Asylum from your late troubles in Holland.”
Ibid., vol. 32, 6-7-1793. To the Mechanical Society of Baltimore. “If the Citizens of the United States have obtained the character of an enlightened and liberal people, they will prove that they deserve it, by shewing themselves the true friends of mankind and making their Country not only an Asylum for the oppressed of every Nation, but a desirable residence for the virtuous and industrious of every Country.”

21   Liberty is defined as follows by Noah Webster in his First American Dictionary of the English Language published in 1828: “Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or mind. The body is at liberty, when not confined; the will or mind is at liberty, when not checked or controlled. A man enjoys liberty, when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions.” Natural liberty “consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government.” Civil liberty is “ the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty, so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty, not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. Civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty.” He further defines political liberty, “ Political liberty, is sometimes used as synonymous with civil liberty. But it more properly designates the liberty of a nation, the freedom of a nation or state from all unjust abridgment of its rights and independence by another nation. Hence we often speak of the political liberties of Europe, or the nations of Europe.” Religious liberty, “is the free right of adopting and enjoying opinions on religious subjects, and worshiping the Supreme Being according to the dictates of conscience, without external control.” Clearly liberty was a critical concept in early America.

22   The full name for the Statue of Liberty is Liberty Enlightening the World. WGW, vol. 26, 6-8-1783. Washington’s sense of enlightenment is closely related to religious liberty: “The Citizens of America, placed in the most enviable condition, as the sole Lords and Proprietors of a vast Tract of Continent, comprehending all the various soils and climates of the World, and abounding with all the necessaries and conveniencies of life, are now by the late satisfactory pacification, acknowledged to be possessed of absolute freedom and Independency; They are, from this period, to be considered as the Actors on a most conspicuous Theatre, which seems to be peculiarly designated by Providence for the display of human greatness and felicity; Here, they are not only surrounded with every thing which can contribute to the completion of private and domestic enjoyment, but Heaven has crowned all its other blessings, by giving a fairer oppertunity for political happiness, than any other Nation has ever been favored with. Nothing can illustrate these observations more forcibly, than a recollection of the happy conjuncture of times and circumstances, under which our Republic assumed its rank among the Nations; The foundation of our Empire was not laid in the gloomy age of Ignorance and Superstition, but at an Epocha when the rights of mankind were better understood and more clearly defined, than at any former period, the researches of the human mind, after social happiness, have been carried to a great extent, the Treasures of knowledge, acquired by the labours of Philosophers, Sages and Legislatures, through a long succession of years, are laid open for our use, and their collected wisdom may be happily applied in the Establishment of our forms of Government; the free cultivation of Letters, the unbounded extension of Commerce, the progressive refinement of Manners, the growing liberality of sentiment, and above all, the pure and benign light of Revelation, have had ameliorating influence on mankind and increased the blessings of Society. At this auspicious period, the United States came into existence as a Nation, and if their Citizens should not be completely free and happy, the fault will be intirely their own.”

23   The names for our country reflect our discoverers and our history. “America” is an anglicized version of “Amerigo,” which in turn is the first name of the explorer, Amerigo Vespuci, who first recognized that North America was not the Indies, but a hitherto unknown continent. Amerigo is a version of the German name “Emerick” which is a corruption of the German word, Himmelreich, meaning “Kingdom of Heaven.” It has been suggested by some that this is an excellent name for America—“a corrupted version of the Kingdom of Heaven!” 2007 is the five hundredth anniversary of America being named America. The title was given by German monk named Martin Waldsemuller to honor Vespuchi as the first to understand that Columbus’ discovery was not the Indies, but an entirely new continent— a New World. Thus, the monk put America on his map of the “new world.” A second name for America is Columbia. This is a feminine version of Columbus, the great first discoverer of the Western Hemisphere. We have Columbus’ name present in our nation’s capitol, Washington D. C.—or the District of Columbia. Columbia—the feminine version of Christopher Columbus’ last name, is a personification of our nation. Columbia stands at the top of our Capitol building in the District of Columbia, where our Congress meets on Capitol Hill. It is interesting that Columbus is the word for dove—the symbol for hope in a new world in the story of Noah’s flood from Genesis 6-9. Further, his first name is Christopher, meaning, “the bearer of Christ.” In a medieval legend, a man carried Christ over a raging stream, and thus was named “The Christ-Bearer” or “Christopher.” One can see why for many years in the Roman Catholic tradition, St. Christopher was the patron saint of travelers. It is most fascinating that the discoverer of America’s name implies one who carries Christ over the waters coming as a dove of hope for a new world after a flood! This may all be coincidence, or then again, it may be a gift of divine Providence. The third, and official name of our country is The United States of America. This reflects the “miracle of Philadelphia” where thirteen sovereign states or nations chose to become one nation of United States. This had never happened before nor has it happened since. Only in America did such a remarkable union of political entities ever occur. This unparalleled event is captured in our Latin mottoes seen on our Dollar Bill: E Pluribus Unum and Novus Ordo Seculorum. The first means, “one out of many” and the second means, “a new order of the ages.” Perhaps it would also be appropriate to note another Latin motto on the dDollar bill—“Annuit Coeptis.” This means “God has smiled at our undertakings.” A providential perspective on history would suggest that such is indeed the case.

24   This phrase comes from one of the earliest publications on the life of Washington, by the Reverend Dr. Jedidiah Morse, a clergyman-scholar and correspondent of Washington. At the end of his thirty-three long page summary of General Washington’s life, based upon the anonymously written and approved life of Washington by David Humphreys, we find the following poem, which probably came from the pen of Humphreys as well.

GENERAL WASHINGTON

GREAT without pomp, without ambition brave—

Proud, not to conquer fellow men, but save—

Friend to the weak—a foe to none but those,

Who plan their greatness on their brethren’s woes—

Aw’d by no titles—undefil’d by lust—

Free without faction, obstinately just—

Too wise to learn, form Machiavel’s school,

That truth and perfidy by turns should rule.

Warm’d by Religion’s sacred, genuine ray,

Which points to future bliss, th’ unerring way;

Yet ne’er controul’d by Superstition’s laws,

The worst of tyrants in the noblest cause..

Jedidiah Morse (1761-1836), The Life of Gen. Washington (Philadelphia: Jones, Hoff & Derrick, 1794).

25   America, the custodian of Washington’s “sacred fire of liberty,” has learned to sing of the “sacred fire” in terms of “freedom’s holy light.” These words come from the patriotic hymn, “My Country ‘Tis of Thee” written by Samuel Francis Smith (1808-1895). A graduate of Harvard and a Baptist pastor, with interest in the American Baptist Missionary Union, Smith wrote the words in less than a half hour at the age of twenty-three, while in seminary. The occasion was a children’s celebration held in a Boston church on July 4t, 1832, the hundredth anniversary year of the birth of Washington. The melody is identical to the British national anthem, “God Save the King” making the last line “Great God our King” a rekindling of the spirit of ’76 that blazed in Washington’s Patriot Army. The first and last stanzas are:

My country ‘tis of thee,

Sweet land of liberty,

Of thee I sing:

Land where my fathers died,

Land of the pilgrim’s pride,

From ev’ry mountain side

Let freedom ring!

Our fathers’ God, to Thee,

Author of liberty,

To Thee we sing:

Long may our land be bright

With Freedom’s holy light;

Protect us by Thy might,

Great God, our King!

26   William J. Federer, remarks in D. James Kennedy’s, One Nation Under God (Ft. Lauderdale: Coral Ridge Ministries, 2005), a video.

27   WGW, vol. 29, 4-25-1788.

28   Ibid., vol. 30, 8-31-1788.

CHAPTER 25

1     WGW, vol. 31, 8-17-1790. To the master, wardens, and brethren of King David’s Lodge of Masons in Newport.

2     John Warwick Montgomery, The Shaping of America (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, Inc., 1976), p. 54 and p. 56.

3     WGW, vol. 35, 4-24-1797. To THE GRAND LODGE OF ANCIENT, FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, “Brothers: In that retirement which declining years induced me to seek, and which repose, to a mind long employed in public concerns, rendered necessary, my wishes that bounteous Providence will continue to bless and preserve our country in Peace, and in the prosperity it has enjoyed, will be warm and sincere; And my attachment to the Society of which we are members will dispose me, always, to contribute my best endeavours to promote the honor and interest of the Craft. For the Prayer you offer in my behalf I entreat you to accept the thanks of a grateful heart; with the assurance of fraternal regard and best wishes for the honor, happiness and prosperity of all the Members of the Grand-lodge of Massachusetts.”
Ibid., vol. 35, 4-1-1797. To THE BROTHERS OF ANCIENT YORK MASONS OF LODGE NO. 22 (Alexandria, Va.) “While my heart acknowledges with Brotherly Love, your affectionate congratulations on my retirement from the arduous toils of past years, my gratitude is no less excited by your kind wishes for my future happiness.

If it has pleased the Supreme Architect of the Universe to make me an humble instrument to promote the welfare and happiness of my fellow men, my exertions have been abundantly recompensed by the kind partiality with which they have been received; and the assurance you give me of your belief that I have acted upon the Square in my public Capacity, will be among my principle enjoyments in this Terrestial Lodge.”
Ibid., vol. 35, 11-8-1798, To THE MARYLAND GRAND LODGE OF FREE MASONS
“Gentlemen and Brothers: Your obliging and affectionate letter, together with a Copy of the constitutions of Masonry, has been put into my hands by your Grand Master; for which I pray you to accept my best thanks.

So far as I am acquainted with the principles and doctrines of Free Masonry, I conceive it to be founded in benevolence, and to be exercised only for the good of Mankind; I cannot, therefore, upon this ground, withhold my approbation of it.” Ibid., vol. 24, 8-10-1782 To WATSON & CASSOUL, “Gentn: The Masonick Ornaments which accompanied your Brotherly Address of the 23d. of the first Month, tho’ elegant in themselves, were rendered more valuable by the flattering sentiments, and affectionate manner, in which they were offered. If my endeavours to avert the evil, with which this Country was threatened, by a deliberate plan of Tyranny, should be crowned with the success that is wished; the praise is due to the Grand Architect of the Universe; who did not see fit to Suffer his Superstructures, and justice, to be subjected to the ambition of the princes of this World, or to the rod of oppression, in the hands of any power upon Earth. For your affectionate Vows, permit me to be grateful; and offer mine for true Brothers in all parts of the World; and to assure you of the sincerity with which I am etc.”

4     Paul Johnson, George Washington: The Founding Father (HarperCollins Publishers, 2005), p. 11.

5     Randall, George Washington: A Life, p. 67.

6     Boller, George Washington & Religion, pp. 111-112.

7     Albert G. Mackey, M. D., The Encyclopedia of Free Masonry (Philadelphia: McClure Publishing Co., 1917), pp. 9-10 says, “The acacia, which, in Scripture, is always called Shittah, and in the plural Shittim, was esteemed a sacred wood among the Hebrews. Of it Moses was ordered to make a tabernacle, the ark of the covenant, the table for the shewbread, and the rest of the sacred furniture....the acacia, in the mythic system of Freemasonry, is preeminently the symbol of the IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL—that important doctrine which it is the great design of the Institution to teach.”

8     For Washington’s Masonic Sermon Collection see Lane, Washington Collection of the Boston Athenaeum, p. 132.

9     In Washington’s Masonic Sermon collection were sermons preached by some of the great clergymen of the day, such as Reverend Samuel Miller, one of the leading Presbyterian preachers.

A

DISCOURSE

Delivered in the

NEW PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.

NEW-YORK:

Before the

GRAND LODGE

Of the STATE OF NEW-YORK,

AND THE BRETHREN OF THAT FRATERNITY,

ASSEMBLED IN GENERAL COMMUNICATION,

OF THE FESTIVAL OF

ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST,

June 24th, 1795

By SAMUEL MILLER, A.M.

One of the Ministers of the United Presbyterian

Churches, in the City of New-York

New-York: - Printed by F. Childs.

1795

10   Uzal Ogden, “Sermon Delivered at Morristown, On Monday December 27, 1784, it being the Festival of St. John the Evangelist, Before the Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons, of Lodge No. 10 in the State of New Jersey.” The page after the title page declares, “In Lodge No. 10, State of New-Jersey, Morris-Town, December 27, 5784. Resolved, That the thanks of this Lodge, be presented to the Reverend Mr. Uzal Ogden, for his sermon delivered this day before them, convened for the celebration of the Festival of St. John the Evangelist. And that Brothers, ... be desired to request the Reverend Mr. Ogden, to commit said discourse to writing, and to beg the favour of the manuscript for publication.” Reverend Ogden’s sermon was Gospel focused, “But, to deliver us from the curse of the law, even the Son of God himself, in condescension and goodness infinite, assumed our nature; ‘bore our iniquities;’ expiated our guilt; became ‘accursed for us’ the just having suffered for the unjust.’...We perceive, therefore, that the Gospel is a dispensation of divine Mercy;—-that our redemption is of free ‘Grace;’ by us altogether unmerited; that Christianity was most graciously designed to counteract the effects of sin.;...As salvation is attainable only through Christ, of necessity, therefore, those who reject his dispensation of grace, must be consigned over to eternal woe....” p. 21ff. “And remember Sirs, you are Christian-Masons!—-That you are under obligations numerous and most sacred, to make conscience of all your deeds, and so to live, that, in truth, you may—-fear God;—-honour the Government;—-honour all men, and love your Christian and Masonic Brotherhoods! How many have there been who have done honour to Christianity and Masonry;—-who have been Christian Masons indeed?” pp. 39-40.

11   See chapter two.

12   WGW, vol. 1, 6-12-1754. To Robert Dinwiddie. “I am much grieved to find our Stores so slow advancing. God knows when we shall [be] able to do any thing for to deserve better of our Country.” An example of one of Washington’s earliest written prayers to God is in WGW, vol. 2, 6-10-1757. To John Robinson, “ God send them success and a safe return, I pray.”

13   The Masonic Constitution was printed at the beginning of Uzal Ogden’s Masonic sermon preached in 1795, which was also in Washington’s Masonic sermon collection. Reverend Uzal Ogden was an evangelical Episcopalian, whose Gospel sermons had been read and enjoyed by Washington. (See WGW, vol. 16, 8-5-1779. To Uzal Ogden.) Thus Gospel sermons were preached in the Masonic Order of Washington’s day. Washington also autographed his copy of Uzal Ogden’s Antidote to Deism. The Deist unmasked; or an ample Refutation of all the Objections of Thomas Paine, against the Christian Religion, 2 vol. (Newark: John Woods, 1795). Apparently Washington did not respond to Reverend Ogden’s request for Washington’s approbation of the work in his March 22 1796 letter to the president.

14   See Uzal Ogden’s sermon quoted in note 13 above.

15   See Samuel Miller’s sermon cited in note 12 above.

16   Reverend Dr. William Smith, A Sermon preached in Christ-Church Philadelphia, [For the Benefit of the Poor] by appointment of and before the General Communication of Free and Accepted Masons of the State of Pennsylvania, On Monday December 28, 1779.

17   

THE

PHILANTHROPIST

OR

A GOOD TWELVE CENTS WORTH OF POLITICAL LOVE POWDER,

FOR THE FAIR DAUGHTERS AND PATRIOTIC SONS OF AMERICA

 

By the Reverend M.L. Weems, (of Lodge No. 50)

Dumfries

 

____________________

 

ALEXANDRIA

Printed by John & James D. Westcott

MDCCXCIX

 

To his Excellency George Washington, Esquire,

Lieutenant General of the Armies of the United States.

Most Honor’d General,

...

On the Square of Justice,

And on the Scale of Love,

I remain, Most Honored General,

Your very sincere friend,

And Masonic Brother,

M.L. Weems

18   Mackey, The Encyclopedia of Free Masonry, p. 182 has an article entitled, “the Christianization of Freemasonry.” It states that wherever Christianity is strong, it often brings its faith directly into the Masonic Order.

The interpretation of the symbols of Freemasonry from a Christian point of view is a theory adopted by some of the most distinguished Masonic writers of England and this country, but one of which I think does not belong to the ancient system. Hutchinson, and after him Oliver, - profoundly philosophical as are the Masonic speculations of both, -have, I am constrained to believe, fallen into a great error in calling the Master Mason’s degree a Christian institution. It is true that it embraces within its scheme the great truths of Christianity upon the subject of the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the body; but this was to be presumed, because Freemasonry is truth, and all truth must be identical. But the origin of each is different; their histories are dissimilar. The principles of Freemasonry preceded the advent of Christianity. Its symbols and its legends are derived from the Solomonic Temple and the people even anterior to that. Its religion comes from the ancient priesthood; its faith was that primitive one of Noah and his immediate descendents. If Masonry were simply a Christian institution, the Jew and the Moslem, the Brahman and the Buddhist, could not conscientiously partake of its illumination. But its universality is its boast. In its language citizens of every nation may converse; at its altar men of all religions man kneel; to its creed disciples of every faith may subscribe.

Yet it cannot be denied that since the advent of Christianity a Christian element had been almost imperceptibly infused into the Masonic system, at least among Christian Masons. This has been a necessity; for it is the tendency of every predominant religion to pervade with its influence all that surrounds it or is about it, whether religious, political, or social. This arises from a need of the human heart. To the man deeply imbued with the spirit of his religion, there is an almost unconscious desire to accommodate and adapt all the business and the amusements of life, - the labors and the employments of his every-day existence,—to the I-dwelling faith of his soul.

The Christian Mason, therefore, while acknowledging and appreciating the great doctrines taught in Masonry, and also while grateful that these doctrines were preserved in the bosom of his ancient Order at a time when they were unknown to the multitudes of the surrounding nations, is still anxious to give them a Christian character; to invest them, in some measure, with the peculiarities of his own creed, and to bring the interpretation of their symbolism more nearly home to his own religious sentiments.

The feeling is an instinctive one, belonging to the noblest aspiration of our human nature; and hence we find Christian Masonic writers indulging in it to an almost unwarrantable excess, and, by the extent of their sectarian interpretations, materially affecting the cosmopolitan character of the Institution.

This tendency to Christianization has, in some instances, been so universal, and has prevailed for so long a period, and has prevailed for so long a period, that certain symbols and myths have been in this way, so deeply and thoroughly imbued with the Christian element as to leave those who have not penetrated into the cause of the peculiarity, in doubt whether they should attribute to the symbol an ancient or a modern and Christian origin.

19   See, for example, the articles on “Freemasonry” in Documents of Synod: Study Papers and Actions of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical synod—1965-1982, ed. Paul R. Gilchrist (New Castle, Delaware: Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod, 1982), pp. 252-264.

20   Alexander D.D., Reverend Archibald. Evidences of the Authenticity, Inspiration, and Canonical Authority of the Holy Scriptures.(Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication)., p.27-30

Again, if deism be the true religion, why has piety never flourished among its professors? Why have they not been the most zealous and consistent worshippers of God? Does not truth promote piety? And will it not ever be the case that they who hold the truth will love God most ardently, and serve him most faithfully? But what is the fact in regard to this class of men? Have they ever been distinguished for the spirit of devotion; have they produced numerous instances of exemplary piety? It is so much the reverse, that even the asking such reasonable questions has the appearance of ridicule. And when people heat the word “pious deist,” they have the same sort of feeling as when mention is made of an honest thief, or a sober drunkard.

There is no slander in making this statement, for deists do not affect to be pious. They have no love for devotion. If the truth were known, this is the very thing they wish to get rid of; and if they believed that professing themselves to be deist laid them under greater obligations to be devout, they would not be so zealous for the system. Believe me, the contest is not between one religion and another, it is between religion and irreligion. It is impossible that a man of truly pious temper should reject the Bible, even if he were unacquainted with its historical evidences. He would find it to be so congenial to his taste, and so salutary in its effects on his own spirit, that he would conclude that it must have derived its origin from heaven. But we find no such spirit in the writings of deists. There is not in them a tincture of piety; but they have more than a sprinkling of profane ridicule. When you turn to them from the Bible, you are sensible of as great a transition, as if you passed suddenly from a warm and genial climate to a frigid zone. If deists expect ever to conciliate regard for their religion they must appear to be truly pious men, sincerely engaged in the service of God; and this will have more effect than all their arguments. But whenever this event shall occur, they will be found no longer opposing the Bible, but will esteem it as the best of books, and will come to it for fuel to feed the flame of pure devotion. An African prince, who was brought to England and resided there some time, being asked what he thought of the Bible, answered, that he believed it to be from God, for he found all the good people in favour of it, and all the bad people against it!

The want of a spirit of piety and devotion, must be reckoned the principal reason why the deists have never been able to establish and keep up any religious worship among themselves. The thing has been attempted at several different times and in different countries, but never with success.

It is said, that the first enterprise of this kind was that of David Williams, an Englishman, who had been a dissenting minister in Liverpool, but passing over first to Socinianism, and then to deism, when to London, where, being patronized by some persons of influence, he opened a house for deistical worship, and formed a liturgy, consisting principally of praise to the Creator. Here he preached for a short time, and collected some followers; but he complained that most of his congregation went on to atheism. After four years’ trial, the scheme came to nothing. There were neither funds nor congregation remaining, and the Priest of Nature, (as Williams styled himself) through discouragement and ill health, abandoned the project.

Some feeble attempts of the same kind have been made in the United States; but they are unworthy of being particularly noticed.

Federick II., the deistical king of Prussia, had once formed the plan of a Pantheon in Berlin for the worshippers of all sects and all religions, the chief object of which was the subversion of Christianity; but the scheme was never carried into execution.

The most interesting experiment of this kind was that made by the Theophilanthropists in France, during the period of the revolution. After some trial had been made of atheism and irreligion, and when the want of public worship was felt by many reflecting persons, a society was formed for the worship of God, upon the pure principles of Natural Religion. Among the patrons of this society, were men beloved for their philanthropy, and distinguished for their learning, and some high in power.

La Revellière Lepaux, one of the directory of France, was a zealous patron of the new religion. By his influence, permission was obtained to make use of the churches for their worship. In the city of Paris alone, eighteen or twenty were assigned to them, among which was the cathedral church of Notre Dame.

Their creed was simple, consisting of the great articles, The Existence of God, and the Immortality of the Soul. Their moral system also embraced two great principles, The Love of God, And The Love of Man; - which were indicated by the name Theophilanthropists. Their worship consisted of prayers and hymns of praise, which were comprehended in a manual prepared for a directory in worship. Lectures were delivered by the members, which, however, underwent the inspection of the society, before they were pronounced in public. To these were added some simple ceremonies, such as placing a basket of fruit and flowers on the altar. Music, vocal and instrumental, was used; for the latter, they availed themselves of the organs in the churches. Great efforts were made to have this worship generally introduced in all the principal towns in France; and the views of the society were even extended to foreign countries. Their manual was sent into all parts of the republic by the Minister of the interior, free of expense.

Never did a society enjoy greater advantages at its commencement. Christianity had been rejected with scorn; atheism had for a short time been tried, but was found to be intolerable; the government was favourable to the project; men of learning and influence patronized it, and churches ready built were at the service of the new denomination. The system of Natural Religion which was adopted was the best that could have been selected, and considerable wisdom was discovered in the construction of their liturgy. But with all these circumstances in their favour, the society could not subsist. At first, indeed, while the scene was novel, large audiences attended, most of whom however were merely spectators; but in a short time, they dwindled away to such a degree, that instead of occupying twenty churches in Paris, they needed only four; and in some of the provincial towns, where they began under the most favourable auspices, they soon came to nothing. Thus they went on declining until, under the consular government, they were prohibited the use of the churches any longer; upon which they immediately expired without a struggle, and it is believed that not a vestige of the society now remains.

It will be instructive and interesting to inquire into the reasons of this want of success, in a society enjoying so many advantages. Undoubtedly, the chief reason was, the want of a truly devotional spirit. This was observed from the beginning of their meetings. There was nothing to interest the feelings of the heart. Their orators might be men of learning, and might produce good moral discourses, but they were not men of piety, and not always men of pure morals. Their hymns were said to be well composed, and the music good; but the musicians were hired from the stage. There was also a strange defect of liberality in contributing to the funds of the society. They found it impossible to raise, in some their societies, a sum which every Christian congregation, even in the poorest of any sect, would have collected in one day. It is a fact, that one of the societies petitioned government to grant them relief from a debt which they had contracted in providing the apparatus of their worship, not amounting to more than fifty dollars, stating, that their annual income did not exceed twenty dollars. In the other towns their musicians deserted them, because they were not paid, and frequently no person could be found to deliver lectures.

21   WGW, vol. 32, 7-3-1792. WGW note: “The portrait was not executed until September, 1794, in Philadelphia. Having been refused a sitting at the above time, Williams offered the Masonic Lodge No. 22 of Alexandria the finished work, if the lodge would request him to make a portrait. The lodge approved this idea Aug. 29, 1793. The resultant portrait was executed in pastel, and is now in the possession of the lodge.” Mrs. Washington said it was her favorite portrait of the President, because the stylization and embellishment of portrait painters was not followed, and Williams painted Washington as he saw him, even with imperfections like small pox marks.

22   Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution, 125.

23   WGW, vol. 36, 9-25-1798. To Reverend G.W. Snyder. WGW note says, “In a letter from Snyder (Aug. 22, 1798, which is in the Washington Papers), it is stated that this book ‘gives a full Account of a Society of Free-Masons, that distinguishes itself by the Name of ‘Illuminati,’ whose Plan is to overturn all Government and all Religion, even natural.’” Washington followed up the letter a few weeks later. WGW, 10-24-1798. To Reverend G. W. Snyder. “Revd Sir: I have your favor of the 17th. instant before me; and my only motive to trouble you with the receipt of this letter, is to explain, and correct a mistake which I perceive the hurry in which I am obliged, often, to write letters, have led you into. It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am. The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of seperation). That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a seperation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned. My occupations are such, that but little leisure is allowed me to read News Papers, or Books of any kind; the reading of letters, and preparing answers, absorb much of my time. With respect, etc.”

24   Timothy Dwight, “The Duty of Americans at the Present Crisis” (1798) in Annals of America, (Chicago, 1976), vol. 4.

25   Thomson compiled and published a harmony of the Gospels, and served as an elder in the Presbyterian Church. As a classics scholar, he was the source of the Latin motto, Annuit Coeptis, meaning “He [God] has smiled on our undertakings” that is back of the Great Seal of the United States and on the reverse of the American dollar bill. See Peter A. Lillback, Freedom’s Holy Light, (Bryn Mawr: The Providence Forum, 2000), pp. 4-7.

26   WGW, vol. 33, 3-5-1794. to Charles Thomson.

27   Boyd Stanley Schlenther, Charles Thomson: A Patriot’s Pursuit (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1990), pp. 216-217. “...the Master of the Masonic Order in Baltimore who was “determined... to unbosom my 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. In fact, throughout his life he appears never to have joined any organization that he did not feel was involved in some useful purpose. He never was a member of the Tammany Society; he never joined Philadelphia’s Hibernian Club, organized in 1759 by bother Protestant and Roman Catholic Irish immigrants. It appears that any group that smacked of frivolity or that was mainly given to socializing was never to Thomson’s taste, and even those organizations with which he had associated himself –such as the Philosophical Society and the Agricultural Society—soon lost their charm, and interest, especially if they had appeared to have served their purpose for him.

To occupy his time after Hannah’s death, Thomson turned once again to biblical studies. Even while the Bible was in the process of printing, Thomson had begun “to draw up a harmony of the four evangelists from my translation following the Order of Dr. Doddridge.” Thomson believed that by arranging the facts presented in the Gospels, producing them in parallel columns, he had “removed the seeming inconsistencies with which they are charged & shewn that instead of contradicting, they strengthen & confirm one another’s narrative.”

In it, he justified publication on the grounds that though there had been many such harmonies, “infidels still continue to charge the Evangelist with inconsistency, and contradiction.” As for himself, Thomson publicly admitted that the real reason he first undertook the task was for his own “solace.”

One result of the publication of the Synopsis was brief renewal of his correspondence with Jefferson, which had not been maintained following their exchanges at the appearance of the full Bible in 1808. Early in 1816 Jefferson wrote that he had received a copy of the Synopsis, and after perfunctory compliments he proceeded to inform Thomson that he had made a “wee little book” of his own; by cutting the texts from the Gospels which include the words of Jesus, Jefferson had compiled what he called the “Philosophy of Jesus.” This information led Thomson to an innocent but extremely awkward indiscretion. Delighted that Jefferson saw this project as proof of his own religious nature) “I am a real Christian—that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus”), Thomson brought several Philadelphians to the conclusion that there was reason for “the Religious world. ...[to be] daily congratulating each other,” on Jefferson’s “happy change of Religious belief.” The miraculous had happened: Jefferson had made “a profession of faith.” The matter had gone so far that Thomson nearly provided Jefferson’s letter for publication, only to receive this rebuke: “I apprehend that [you] were no sufficiently aware of its private & personal nature, or of the impropriety of putting it in the power of an editor to publish, without the consent of the writer.” Crestfallen, Thomson wrote immediately to apologize. Jefferson – who had been caused no little anxiety and trouble by the who affair—replied, saying that he had received a communication from a person in Philadelphia who had seen his letter to Thomson, asking Jefferson “questions which I answer only to one Being. To himself, therefore. I replied: ‘Say nothing of my Religion; it is known to my God and myself alone.’” Under the circumstances, it was a kindly response to Thomson, but this really was the last letter ever to pass between the two men.”

28   Michael Novak and Jana Novak, Washington’s God: Religion, Liberty, and the Father of Our Country, (New York: Basic Books, 2006), p. 97, “Some object that he was a member of the Freemasons for many years (although his attendance at lodge meetings was extremely rare), and that that is incompatible with Christian belief. (Roman Catholics, even today, are forbidden to belong to the Masons; in Europe, unlike in the United States, Freemasonry has been rabidly, sometimes violently, anti-Catholic.) But many American Christian then and now have found nothing incompatible between Freemasonry and Christianity and have looked at the former as a kind of service arm of the latter. Indeed, in Washington’s day many bishops and clergymen were active members of their local Masonic lodges.”

29   John Warwick Montgomery, The Shaping of America (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, Inc., 1976), pp. 54 and p. 56.

30   Randall, George Washington: A Life, (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1997), p. 67.

31   Johnson, George Washington: The Founding Father (HarperCollins Publishers, 2005), pp. 10-11, “But neither did Washington look back to the seventeenth century and its religious zeal. . . He was never indifferent to Christianity—quite the contrary: he saw it as an essential element of social control and good government—but his intellect and emotions inclined him more to the substitute for formal dogma, freemasonry, whose spread among males of the Anglo-Saxon world was such a feature of the eighteenth century. It was introduced into the colonies only three years before his birth. The first true Masonic Lodge in America was founded in 1734 in Philadelphia....”

CHAPTER 26

1     WGW, vol. 36, 8-4-1797. To Lawrence Lewis.

2     Rupert Hughes, George Washington: The Human Being & The Hero 1732-1762, (New York: William Morrow & Company, 1926), vol. 1, p. 552-559.

3     Bancroft, History of the United States of America, vol. IV, 34.

4     WGW, vol. 2, 7-2-1766. To Captain John Thompson. “With this letter comes a negro (Tom), which I beg the favor of you to sell in any of the Islands you may go to, for whatever he will fetch, and bring me in return from him.”

One hhd (Hogshead—a cask containing from 63 to 140 gallons)

One ditto of best rum

One barrel of lymes, if good and cheap

One pot of tamarinds, containing about 10 lbs.

Two small ditto of mixed sweetmeats, about 5 lbs each.

5     Ibid., vol. 28, 4-12-1786. To Robert Morris. “There is not a man living, who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted, for the abolition of slavery. But there is only one proper way and effectual mode by which it can be accomplished, and this by legislative authority.” WGW, vol. 28, 5-10-1786. To Lafayette. “To set the slaves afloat, at once would I believe be productive of much inconvenience and mischief; but, by degrees, it certainly might and assuredly ought to be effected, and that, too, by legislative authority.” WGW, vol. 34, 11-23-1794. To Alexander Spotswood. “With respect to the other species of property, concerning which you ask my opinion, I shall frankly declare to you that I do not like even to think, much less talk of it. However, as you have put the question, I shall, in a few words, give you my ideas of it. Were it not then, that I am principled against selling negroes, as you would do cattle at a market, I would not in twelve months from this date, be possessed of one, as a slave. I shall be happily mistaken, if they are not found to be very troublesome species of property ere many years pass over our heads.”

6     Ibid., vol., 29, 9-9-1786. To John Francis Mercer. “I never mean, unless some particular circumstance should compel me to it, to possess another slave by purchase, it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted by which Slavery, in this country may be abolished by law.” “I had resolved never to become the Master of another slave by purchase.” Ibid., vol. 36, 11-13-1797. To George Lewis.

7     Ibid., vol. 36, 11-13-1797 To George Lewis. “The running off of my Cook, has been a most inconvenient thing to this family; and what renders it more disagreeable, is, that I had resolved never to become the Master of another Slave by purchase ; but this resolution I fear I must break. I have endeavoured to hire, black or white, but am not yet supplied.” Ibid., vol. 37, 4-12-1791. To Tobias Lear. “...whilst my residence is incidental as an Officer of Government only, but whether among people who are in the practice of enticing slaves even where there is no colour of law for it, this distinction will avail, I know not, and therefore beg you will take the best advise you can on the subject, and in case it shall be found that any of my Slaves may, or any for them shall attempt their freedom at the expiration of six months, it is my wish and desire that you would send the whole, or such part of them as Mrs. Washington may not chuse to keep, home, for although I do not think they would be benefitted by the change, yet the idea of freedom might be too great a temptation for them to resist. At any rate it might, if they conceived they had a right to it, make them insolent in a State of Slavery. As all except Hercules and Paris are dower negroes, it behoves me to prevent the emancipation of them, otherwise I shall not only loose the use of them, but may have them to pay for. If upon taking good advise it is found expedient to send them back to Virginia, I wish to have it accomplished under pretext that may deceive both them and the Public; and none I think would so effectually do this, as Mrs. Washington coming to Virginia next month (towards the middle or latter end of it, as she seemed to have a wish to do) if she can accomplish it by any convenient and agreeable means, with the assistance of the Stage Horses &c. This would naturally bring her maid and Austin, and Hercules under the idea of coming home to Cook whilst we remained there might be sent on in the Stage. Whether there is occasion for this or not according to the result of your enquiries, or issue the thing as it may, I request that these Sentiments and this advise may be known to none but yourself and Mrs. Washington. From the following expression in your letter “that those who were of age might follow the example of his (the Attorney’s people) after a residence of six months”, it would seem that none could apply before the end of May, and that the non age of Christopher, Richmond and Oney is a bar to them.”
Worthy Partner, footnote, p. 213, says, “Austin, a dower negro slave who had been with the Washingtons in New York and Philadelphia, was returned to Mount Vernon to visit his wife and friends. It is likely the reason for returning him to Virginia was to prevent his possible emancipation. According to Pennsylvania law, when a slave owner took up citizenship in that state, his slaves, providing they were of age, would become emancipated at the end of six months. ... all but three of the servants were dower slaves, and [Washington] did not wish to lose them, and thus be required to reimburse Mrs. Washington’s estates for them.”

8     John C. Fitzpatrick, “The George Washington Slanders” in Washington Bicentennial Committee (Washington, D. C.: 1932), vol. III. pp. 314-319.

9     Howard F. Bremer, George Washington 1732-1799: Chronology—Documents—Bibliographical Aids (Dobbs Ferry, N. Y.: Oceana Publications, 1967), p. 1. Bremer writes, “December 17, 1748, “George William Fairfax married Sarah (“Sally”) Cary. George Washington, two years her junior, fell in love with her and probably remained so all his life.”

10   WGW, vol. 2, 9-12-1758. To Mrs. George William Fairfax. “Dear Madam: Yesterday I was honored with your short but very agreeable favor of the first inst. How joyfully I catch at the happy occasion of renewing a correspondence which I feared was disrelished on your part, I leave to time, that never failing expositor of all things, and to a monitor equally faithful in my own breast, to testify. In silence I now express my joy; silence, which in some cases, I wish the present, speaks more intelligently than the sweetest eloquence.

“If you allow that any honor can be derived from my opposition to our present system of management, you destroy the merit of it entirely in me by attributing my anxiety to the animating prospect of possessing Mrs. Custis, when—I need not tell you, guess yourself. Should not my own Honor and country’s welfare be the excitement? ‘Tis true, I profess myself a votary of love. I acknowledge that a lady is in the case, and further I confess that this lady is known to you. Yes, Madame, as well as she is to one who is too sensible of her charms to deny the Power whose influence he feels and must ever submit to. I feel the force of her amiable beauties in the recollection of a thousand tender passages that I could wish to obliterate, till I am bid to revive them. But experience, alas! sadly reminds me how impossible this is, and evinces an opinion which I have long entertained, that there is a Destiny which has the control of our actions, not to be resisted by the strongest efforts of Human Nature.

“You have drawn me, dear Madame, or rather I have drawn myself, into an honest confession of a simple Fact. Misconstrue not my meaning; doubt it not, nor expose it. The world has no business to know the object of my Love, declared in this manner to you, when I want to conceal it. One thing above all things in this world I wish to know, and only one person of your acquaintance can solve me that, or guess my meaning. But adieu to this till happier times, if I ever shall see them. The hours at present are melancholy dull. Neither the rugged toils of war, no the gentler conflict of A — B — s, [Assembly Balls?] is in my choice. I dare believe you are as happy as you say, I wish I was happy also. Mirth, good humor, ease of mind, and — what else — cannot fail to render you so and consummate your wishes.

“If one agreeable lady could almost wish herself a fine gentleman for the sake of another, I apprehend that many fine gentlemen will wish themselves finer e’er Mrs. Spotswood is possest. She has already become a reigning toast in this camp, and many there are in it who intend (fortune favoring) to make honorable scars speak the fullness of their merit, and be a messenger of their Love to Her.

“I cannot easily forgive the unseasonable haste of my last express, if he deprived me thereby of a single word you intended to add. The time of the present messenger is, as the last might have been, entirely at your disposal. I can’t expect to hear from my friends more than this once before the fate of the expedition will some how or other be determined. I therefore beg to know when you set out for Hampton, and when you expect to return to Belvoir again. And I should be glad also to hear of your speedy departure, as I shall thereby hope for your return before I get down. The disappointment of seeing your family would give me much concern. From any thing I can yet see ‘tis hardly possible to say when we shall finish. I don’t think there is a probability of it till the middle of November. Your letter to Captain Gist I forwarded by a safe hand the moment it came to me. His answer shall be carefully transmitted.

“Col. Mercer, to whom I delivered your message and compliments, joins me very heartily in wishing you and the Ladies of Belvoir the perfect enjoyment of every happiness this world affords. Be assured that I am, dear Madame, with the most unfeigned regard, your most obedient and most obliged humble servant.

“N. B. Many accidents happening (to use a vulgar saying) between the cup and the lip, I choose to make the exchange of carpets myself, since I find you will not do me the honor to accept mine.”

11   WGW, vol. 2, 9-12-1758. To Sally Cary Fairfax.

12   Ibid., vol. 2, 9-12-1758. WGW note explains: “The only authority for this letter that has so far appeared is the text printed in the New York Herald (Mar. 30, 1877), and in Welles’s Pedigree and History of the Washington Family (New York: 1879). The letter was sold by Bangs & Co., auctioneers in New York, and the Herald, after printing this letter the day before, merely reported the sale as disposing of two Washington letters, one at $13 and one at $11.50, leaving it a matter of guess as to which one of these prices belonged to this much discussed epistle.” The letter drops from sight after this sale, and its present whereabouts is unknown. Constance Cary Harrison, in Scribner’s Monthly (July, 1876), wrote: “Mrs. George William Fairfax, the object of George Washington’s early and passionate love, lived to an advanced age, in Bath, England, widowed, childless, and utterly infirm. Upon her death, at the age of eighty-one, letters (still in possession of the Fairfax family) were found among her effects, showing that Washington had never forgotton the influence of his youthful disappointment. But these conclusions are by no means unquestionable. The editor debated for some time the inclusion of this letter and finally concluded to use it after thus noting its unsettled status.”
See John Corbin, The Unknown Washington: Biographic Origins of the Republic (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930), pp. 51-75. Corbin says, “In a very different view are his two letters of the following September to Sally, letters which she treasured to her death. Paul Leicester Ford’s objection that the evidence of their authenticity ‘has not been produced’ is scarcely worthy of consideration. In writing the first daft of his little biography, Captain Cary, a devoted antiquary and genealogist, had access to Sally’s papers and copied them. The final draft was prepared as an answer to Ford, but was still in manuscript when Captain Cary died...In such matters family tradition is of great weight, and in this case it is of the clearest and most substantial. It is sustained, moreover, by evidence both external and internal which is beyond the power of the cleverest impostor to invent. The letters as also that written in 1757 on Washington’s return from the front to Mount Vernon fall in perfectly with all the evidence as to his mood and movements, most of which is now for the first time assembled; and they bear the stamp of his character and habit down to the unrevised sentence-structure and elaborate punctuation. The autograph originals could scarcely be more convincing.” P. 64. See Willard Sterne Randall, George Washington: A Life (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1997), p. 179.

13   John Corbin, The Unknown Washington: Biographic Origins of the Republic (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930), pp. 51-75. Corbin writes, “In 1877, two love letters written by Washington to Mrs. George William Fairfax were published for the first time and caused a sensation which, though masked for decades by biographers, has steadily increased. They had been found among Mrs. Fairfax’s papers upon her death in England in 1811, and her kinsfolk in America had treasured them through two generations in the awed silence of Victorian propriety. The Fairfaxes were Washington’s nearest friends until shortly before the Revolution, their house, Belvoir, being five miles down the Potomac from Mount Vernon and in full view of it. Though George Fairfax was eight years older, the two men had been intimate, surveying electioneering and fox-hunting together, from the time Washington, aged sixteen, came to live with his brother Lawrence. There is abundant evidence, notably in Washington’s diaries, that Mrs. Fairfax and Mrs. Washington were neighborly always, dining and visiting with each other, and were the first to offer sympathy in illness and bereavement. The letters were written in 1758, when Washington, aged twenty-six, was engaged to Martha Custis. Though they are reticently worded and indeed seem intentionally vague and obscure, they are now generally accepted as showing that he was passionately in love with Mrs. Fairfax. One of them speaks of the ‘the recollection of a thousand tender passages that I could wish to obliterate, till I am bid to revive them’—and what follows, as we shall see, is proof enough that these passages were not with Martha. In two later letters, one of them written only nineteen months before he died, he declared that the moments he had spent in her company were ‘the happiest in my life.’ We have here, obviously, something very different from the legend of idyllic love which the Victorians wove about the lives of George and Martha Washington. Whether it is in the way of scandal depends upon the nature of the ‘thousand tender passages.’ That question has obsessed recent biographers.” Pp. 51-52. Kitman, The Making of the President, p. 267-268, 269.

14   WGW, vol. 27, 7-10-1783. To George William Fairfax. “My dear Sir: With very sincere pleasure I receiv’d your favor of the 26th. Of March. It came to hand a few days ago only; and gave me the satisfaction of learning that you enjoyed good health, and that Mrs. Fairfax had improved in hers. there was nothing wanting in this Letter to give compleat satisfaction to Mrs. Washington and myself, but some expression to induce us to believe you would once more become our Neighbours. Your House at Belvoir I am sorry to add is no more, but mine (which is enlarged since you saw it) is most sincerely and heartily at your Service till you could rebuild it. As the path, after being closed by a long, arduous, and painful contest, is to use an Indian Methaphor, now opened and made smooth, I shall please myself with the hope of hearing from you frequently; and till you forbid me to endulge the wish I shall not despair of seeing you and Mrs. Fairfax once more the Inhabitants of Belvoir, and greeting you both there, the intimate companions of our old Age, as you have been of our younger years.”

15   Zall, Washington on Washington, p. 37. Zall writes, “Washington’s ill health was reason enough to retire from military life. His malaria and dysentery had turned so severe in March of 1758 that he left his command at Winchester for treatment in Williamsburg. Six months later he was composing a celebrated letter confessing love to his neighbor’s fun-loving wife, Sally Fairfax (12 Septermber 1758). At eighteen, a slender, tall brunet with sparkling dark eyes, she and her sisters exchanged teasing letters with Washington, apparently tutoring him in the art of courtly correspondence. The love letter could have been another exercise in courtly composition rather than the overflow of powerful feelings, since he carefully revised the expression.”

16   WGW, vol. 11, 4-21-1778.

17   Ibid., vol. 28, 8-1-1786.

18   Ibid., vol. 27, 9-2-1783.

19   Kitman, The Making of the President p. 267-268, 269.

20   Ibid., 267.

21   Flexner, Washington: The Indispensable Man, pp. 17-18.

22   WGW, vol. 1, [1749-50]. To — —. “Dear Friend Robin: As its the greatest mark of friendship and esteem Absent Friends can shew each other in Writing and often communicating their thoughts to his fellow Companions makes me endeavor to signalize myself in acquainting you from time to time and at all times my situation and employments of Life and could wish you would take half the Pains of contriving me a letter by any oppertunity as you may be well assured of its meeting with a very welcome reception my Place of Residence is at present at His Lordships where I might was my heart disengag’d pass my time very pleasantly [agreeably] as theres a very agreeable Young Lady Lives in the same House (Colo. George Fairfax’s Wife’s Sister) but as that’s only adding Fuel to fire it makes me the more uneasy for by often and unavoidably being in Company with her revives my former Passion for your Low Land Beauty whereas was I to live more retired from young Women I might in some measure eliviate my sorrows by burying that chast and troublesome Passion in the grave of oblivion or etarnall forgetfulness for as I am very well assured that’s the only antidote or remedy that I ever shall be releivd by or only recess than can administer any cure or help to me as I am well convinced was I ever to attempt any thing I should only get a denial which would be only adding grief to uneasiness.”

23   Ibid., vol. 1, [1749-50]. To — —. “Dear Friend Robin....”

24   Ibid., vol. 34, 1-16-1795. To Eleanor Parke Custis. [Dear Nelly:] Your letter, the receipt of which I am now acknowledging, is written correctly and in fair characters, which is an evidence that you command, when you please, a fair hand. Possessed of these advantages, it will be your own fault if you do not avail yourself of them, and attention being paid to the choice of your subjects, you can have nothing to fear from the malignancy of criticism, as your ideas are lively, and your descriptions agreeable. Let me touch a little now on your Georgetown ball, and happy, thrice happy, for the fair who were assembled on the occasion, that there was a man to spare; for had there been 79 ladies and only 78 gentlemen, there might, in the course of the evening, have been some disorder among.the caps; notwithstanding the apathy which one of the company entertains for the “ youth “ of the present day, and her determination “never to give herself a moment’s uneasiness on account of any of them.” A hint here; men and women feel the same inclinations to each other now that they always have done, and which they will continue to do until there is a new order of things, and you, as others have done, may find, perhaps, that the passions of your sex are easier raised than allayed. Do not therefore boast too soon or too strongly of your insensibility to, or resistance of, its powers. In the composition of the human frame there is a good deal of inflammable matter, however dormant it may lie for a time, and like an intimate acquaintance of yours, when the torch is put to it, that which is within you may burst into a blaze; for which reason and especially too, as I have entered upon the chapter of advices, I will read you a lecture drawn from this text.

Love is said to be an involuntary passion, and it is, therefore, contended that it cannot be resisted. This is true in part only, for like all things else, when nourishes and supplied plentifully with ailment, it is rapid in its progress; but let these be withdrawn and it may be stifled in its birth or much stinted in its growth. For example, a woman (the same may be said of the other sex) all beautiful and accomplished, will, while her hand and heart are undisposed of, turn the heads and set the circle in which she moves on fire. Let her marry, and what is the consequence? The madness ceases and all is quiet again. Why? not because there is any diminution in the charms of the lady, but because there is an end of hope. Hence it follows, that love may and therefore ought to be under the guidance of reason, for although we cannot avoid first impressions, we may assuredly place them under guard; and my motives for treating on this subject are to show you, while you remain Eleanor Parke Custis, spinster, and retain the resolution to love with moderation, the propriety of adhering to the latter resolution, at least until you have secured your game, and the way by which it may be accomplished.

“When the fire is beginning to kindle, and your heart growing warm, propound these questions to it. Who is this invader? Have I a competent knowledge of him? Is he a man of good character; a man of sense? For, be assured, a sensible woman can never be happy with a fool? What has been his walk in life? Is he a gambler, a spendthrift, or drunkard? Is his fortune sufficient to maintain me in the manner I have been accustomed to live, and my sisters do live, and is he one to whom my friends can have no reasonable objection? If these interrogatories can be satisfactorily answered, there will remain but one more to be asked, that, however, is an important one. Have I sufficient ground to conclude that his affections are engaged by me? Without this the heart of sensibility will struggle against a passion that is not reciprocated; delicacy, custom, or call it by what epithet you will, having precluded all advances on your part. The declaration, without the most indirect invitation of yours, must proceed from the man, to render it permanent and valuable, and nothing short of good sense and an easy unaffected conduct can draw the line between prudery and coquetry. It would be no great departure from truth to say, that it rarely happens otherwise than that a thorough-paced coquette dies in celibacy, as a punishment for her attempts to mislead others, by encouraging looks, words, or actions, given for no other purpose than to draw men on to make overtures that they may be rejected.

“This day, according to our information, gives a husband to your elder sister, and consummates, it is to be presumed, her fondest desires. The dawn with us is bright, and propitious, I hope, of her future happiness, for a full measure of which she and Mr. Law have my earnest wishes. Compliments and congratulations on this occasion, and best regards are presented to your mamma, Dr. Stuart and family; and every blessing, among which a good husband when you want and deserve one, is bestowed on you by yours, affectionately.”

25   WGW, vol. 2, 9-12-1758. To Sally Cary Fairfax.

26   Francis Rufus Bellamy, The Private Life of George Washington, (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1951), p.53.

27   Flexner, Washington: The Indispensable Man, pp. 17-18.

28   WGW, vol. 11, 5-29-1778.

29   Ibid., vol. 12, 9-1-1778.

30   Ibid., vol. 10, 1-28-1778.

31   Ibid., vol. 11, 4-21-1778.

32   Ibid., vol. 24, 7-10-1782.

33   Ibid., vol. 28, 8-1-1786.

34   Ibid., vol., 36, 12-4-1797.

35   Ibid., vol. 28, 5-18-1786.

36   Francis Rufus Bellamy, The Private Life of George Washington (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1951), pp.53-54.

37   See WGW, vol. 3, 1-29-1774. Cf. John Corbin, The Unknown Washington, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930), pp. 43-44.

38   There is ambiguity surrounding the authenticity of this phrase in the Treaty. In Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United Sates of America 1776-1949, ed. Charles I. Bevans (Washington: Dept. Of State), vol. 11:1070, n. 3, one reads, “This translation from the Arabic by Joel Barlow, Consul General at Algiers, has been printed in all official and unofficial treaty collections since it first appeared in 1797 in the Session Laws of the Fifth Congress, first session. In a ‘Note Regarding the Barlow Translation’ Hunter miller stated: ‘. . .Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.” Does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.’”

39   Cf. Boller: Washington & Religion, p. 87-88; John Eidsmoe’s Christianity and the Constitution (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), p. 413-15; Gary DeMar, America’s Christian History: The Untold Story (Atlanta: American Vision Inc., 1995), p. 131-42. It is a myth because Washington did not sign this treaty, since he was not president when it was ratified. John Adams was the president that signed it into law on June 10, 1797. It was superseded on April 17, 1806. Leo Pfeffer, Church, State and Freedom (Boston: Beacon Press, 1953), p. 211 points out that following the war with Tripoli in 1801, the subsequent Treaty of 1806 during the Jefferson administration does not use this phrase again. This appears ironic given Jefferson’s penchant for deistic thought.

40   See the following all written after Boller’s 1963 study who continue to attribute this remark to Washington: Ernest Campbell Mossner, “Deism,” The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Paul Edwards, 8 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1967), 2:334; Norman L. Geisler, Is Man the Measure: An Evaluation of Contemporary Humanism (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983), p. 124-25; Mike Horton, The Horses’s Mouth (April, 1994), p. 1-2.

41   Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United Sates of America 1776-1949, ed. Charles I. Bevans (Washington: Dept. Of State), vol. 11:1070, n. 3.

42   Joel Barlow’s extended notes on atheism are found in his papers that are preserved in the Harvard University archives. We provide here a few examples of Barlow’s investigation of atheism in his private reflections based on various French encyclopedia articles. Based upon such musings, one can understand why he interpolated the text that denies any connection between Christianity and the United States. The language of the Treaty was discussed in note 28 above. Barlow wrote:

...Critius, a famous atheist, agreed that the stars etc. were the first objects of worship.—but accounts for it in a singular manner. He says men were first disorderly and unjust, and lived by open violence. They soon found it was best to have laws to repress these evils. These served very well for a while. But their authority soon grew feeble, and men found the means to allude them by committing their crimes in secret. To repress these, some wise politician invented the fable of gods. He said every planet was a god, and he placed gods everywhere to watch men’s secret actions and made them believe they would be punished hereafter. Such is his idea of the origin of religion. ...

...The monotheist, such as the Jews, the Christians, and the Mehomitans, whose history is best known to us, are remarkable for religious wars. The Jews founded their empire upon them.—the Mehomitans did the same; and the Christians, if we reckon their sectarians wars, their Mehomitan wars, their South American wars and their pagan wars, have probably destroyed more men than both the other classes of monotheists.

...In this examination of monotheism I do not bring into view the ancient philosophers, who believed in one God only, nor the modern Deists. The hands of those classes of men never formed a national religion and consequently have had very little affect on the moral or political character of any people. These teach in speculation are certainly repectable, but if they were reduced to dogmas, and formed into a system of worship, it is probable that such a system would degenerate into something like the Jewish or Mehometan. They might avoid the absurdities of the Christian system, but who could guarantee them against other absurdities as great?

Questions.

If man in all ages and countries had understood astronomy and physics as well as they do now generally in Europe would the ideas of God and religion have ever come into their minds?

Have not these ideas been greater sources of human calamity than all other moral causes? Is it not necessary in the nature of things that they should be so, as long as they exist in the minds of men in such a strong degree as to form the basis of education?
If we admit that these ideas are wholly chimerical having arisen altogether from ignorance of natural causes is it not the duty of every person who sees this evil tendency to use his influence to banish them as much as possible from society?
Is it not possible wholly to destroy their influence and reduce them to the rank of other ancient fables to be found only in the history of human errors?
If the existence of philosophy would have prevented their existence why shall it not destroy them?
Had it been known that the earth moved round the sun, the latter would not have been considered a god. The knowledge of this movement would have been the key to all the science of astronomy and prevented mankind from being deceived for so many ages by false appearances in the movements of the heavenly bodies. Those false appearances gave the idea of life and intelligence in those bodies. Their influence on the earth was apparent, and if we suppose those influences to be directed by their intelligence the consequence is that they control us and either make or destroy our happiness. They are therefore gods, good or bad according as we are affected by their influence.
Darkness, storms, whirlwinds, thunders, inundations, were deified on the same principles, being unexplained they were supposed to act from their own will or that of their masters, they were therefore feared and adored as beings whom we could not control but might hope to soften by our prayers as we might a passionate master who had us in his power.

Joel Barlow was one of the few atheists among the early American governmental leaders. It seems that he kept his thoughts on this topic mainly to himself in his notes. Could it be that the anomalous and disputed text distancing America from the Christian religion in his version of the Treaty of Tripoli may reflect his own philosophical approach addressed above—“If the existence of philosophy would have prevented their existence [i.e. the errors of religion] why shall it not destroy them?”