Deism: n. [Fr. Deisme; Sp. Deismo; It. Id.; from L. deus, [God]. The doctrine or creed of a Deist; the belief or system of religious opinions of those who acknowledge the existence of one God, but deny revelation: or deism is the belief in natural religion only, or those truths, in doctrine and practice, which man is to discover by the light of reason, independent and exclusive of any revelation from God. Hence deism implies infidelity or a disbelief in the divine origin of the scriptures.
Deist: n. [Fr. Deiste; It. Deista.] One who believes in the existence of a God, but denies revealed religion; one who professes no form of religion, but follows the light of nature and reason, as his only guides in doctrine and practice; a freethinker. Noah Webster, 1828 Dictionary of the American English Language3
Before we begin our study, we should define our terms. A Deist is one who believes that there is a God, but He is far removed from the daily affairs of men. God made the world and then left it to run on its own. The Deist’s God does not take an active interest in the affairs of men. He is not a prayer-answering God. Praying to Him has no value. Deism is in some ways the natural outworking of exalting reason alone—that is, human reason apart from divine revelation.
The meaning of Deism has changed through the years. What Deism meant in Washington’s day and what it meant later is an important point in terms of understanding the religious milieu of George Washington. Because of these shades of meaning, there has been scholarly confusion over the use of the word “Deism.” Deism, in general, whether in Washington’s day or after, has not believed what the New Testament declares: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God….And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us…” (John 1:1, 14, NASB). In other words, a Deist, most decidedly, did not accept the Christian claim of the incarnation—that is, that God entered time and space to reveal himself to humanity through his son Jesus Christ.
Scholars identify our founders with secularism or Deism. Does this mean that they did not believe in God’s providential actions in American history? Or is it possible that in this period of history there was an earlier form of Deism that still prayed and believed in Providence, but denied that the Bible was the revelation of God? The difference between the two can be described by what we will call “hard Deism” and “soft Deism.”
Hard Deists rejected more elements of Christianity than soft Deists. A hard Deist not only denied that God had revealed himself in scripture, but he also denied that God acts in history, which is usually described by the word “Providence.” Thomas Paine, the best representative of what we are calling hard Deism, in his Age of Reason, rejected the idea of Providence, calling it one of the five deities of Christian mythology.4 Hard Deists also typically rejected a belief in God’s hearing and answering prayer. The movement from the original soft Deism to the fully developed hard Deism is reflected in Crane Brinton’s comment in The Shaping of Modern Thought: “One of the most remarkable examples of the survival of religious forms is found when professed Deists indulge in prayer, as they occasionally did. After all, the whole point about the Deist’s clockmaker God is that he has set the universe in motion, according to natural law and has thereupon left it to its own devices. Prayer to such a god would seem peculiarly inefficacious.”5 This is clearly the conclusion that Thomas Paine reached in the Age of Reason.6 In other words, Deism means an absentee God.
Many consider Washington to have been a soft Deist. Supposedly, this would mean that Washington did not believe that God revealed himself in the Bible. It also means that he did not accept the Christian claims of Christ’s divine nature, nor of His atoning death for man’s sin and his resurrection from the dead, but that he may well have believed in prayer and Providence, in some sense. Further, while not even the strictest skeptic accuses Washington of being a hard Deist, there is a tendency to inappropriately compare Washington and Paine. Boller, for example, writes that both Washington and Paine used similar deistic names for God. Yet there was a deep divide between the two. The tension between Paine and Washington began over Paine’s book the Rights of Man.7 Before this, their friendship had been strong; Washington had loved Common Sense and loved Paine’s logical arguments that called for the American Revolution that he so ably put forth.8 But Paine’s criticism of Washington in the context of the Rights of Man is captured by Washington biographer Thomas Flexner:
Another complaint is that, in acknowledging copies of the Rights of Man, which Paine had sent him, Washington had coldly sidestepped all comment. As a matter of fact, the president, who wished to remain nonpartisan, had used common sense. Paine would undoubtedly have published any compliment Washington sent him. Jefferson was, indeed, to get into hot water by having a letter he wrote to an American printer appear as an introduction and seeming endorsement of Paine’s extremely controversial work.9
Moreover, Thomas Paine never forgave Washington for his utter silence to his cries for help when he was imprisoned during the violence of the French Revolution. When Paine made it back to America, he used every occasion he could to attack his erstwhile friend, while Washington never responded publicly.10 The complete severance of their former relationship is underscored by the words of George Washington scholar, John C. Fitzpatrick. This passage begins with Washington’s rebuttal to an open letter Paine had written, criticizing our first President: “…absolute falsehoods. As an evidence whereof, and of the plan they are pursuing, I send you a letter from Mr. Paine to me, Printed in this city and disseminated with great industry.” The letter, “Printed in the city and disseminated with great industry,” was dated July 30, 1796, and published by Benjamin Franklin Bache, a newspaper publisher and a contemporary of George Washington who was severely critical of our founding father—not a popular stance at the time. It was republished in Dublin and London in 1797. It ended thus: “As to you sir, treacherous in private friendship (for so you have been to me, and that in the day of danger) and a hypocrite in public life, the world will be puzzled to decide, whether you are an apostate or an imposter; whether you have abandoned good principles or whether you ever had any.”
So when Boller suggests a parallel between the theological vocabulary of Washington and Paine, in the following statement, in light of the above, it is clear that he entirely neutralizes the intense disagreement that an authentic description of their relationship requires.
Most of Washington’s official communications during the Revolution contained no references to the Christian religion itself. The appeal, as we have seen, was customarily made to “Heaven,” “Providence,” “Supreme Being,” “supreme disposer of all events,” and to “the great arbiter of the Universe.” All of these were, of course, expressions that a good Deist—like Thomas Paine, for instance—could use in all sincerity without in any way committing himself to the theology and doctrines of the Christian church.11
DEISM IN WASHINGTON’S LANGUAGE?
Part of the shading of the truth in this debate is attempting to identify Washington’s language with that of the “hard Deist” Thomas Paine by pointing to his use of phrases such as “Heaven,” “Providence,” “Supreme Being,” “Supreme Disposer of all events,” and “the great Arbiter of the Universe.” But let’s take Boller at his own words. Are the names for God used by Washington “expressions that a good Deist—like Thomas Paine—could use in all sincerity, without in any way committing himself to the theology and doctrines of the Christian Church”? First we must ask, if Paine believed that Providence was a Christian mythology, how could he employ each of these terms that argue for God’s direct governance in human history? It seems clear to us, however, that Paine himself sensed the incongruity implicit in Boller’s claim, since Paine did not use these terms in the Age of Reason. Instead, Paine’s truncated Deistic theological terminology limited itself to the meager list of merely “God,” “Creator,” and “Almighty.” When the variety of names for God that Washington used throughout his writings is considered, however, one discovers around a hundred different titles for God.12 These titles are remarkably diverse. It’s almost as though Washington did not want to use the same title for God a second time. Yet he did use the word “God” over a hundred times and the word “heaven” over a hundred times. The honorific titles for God such as “the Great Author of the Universe” or the “Great Disposer of Human Events” are only samples of his vast theological vocabulary by which he sought to honor God.
So, while Paine does not use these titles that Washington so frequently employs, we have also found these same titles for God in the writings of other great Christian preachers of Washington’s day, whose messages were among the sermons that Washington purchased, collected, and bound, and were found in his library when he died. Reverend Samuel Miller is an example of an orthodox minister of Washington’s day using terms for God that our President used. Reverend Miller was a Presbyterian minister and certainly no Deist. His July 4, 1793, message based on 2 Corinthians 3:17 was received by Washington and was bound in Washington’s sermon collection.13 Reverend Miller’s sermon, entitled “A Sermon on the Anniversary of the Independence of America,” refers to God in the following ways:
• “the supreme Arbiter of nations”
• “the grand Source”
• “the Deity himself “
• “the Sovereign Dispenser of all blessings”
• “the Governor of the universe”
• “thou exalted Source of liberty”14
When George Washington used his multitude of respectful titles for God, he was simply employing a Baroque style popular among many of the ministers at the time.15 He was not showing that he harbored some sort of secret, unspoken code of unbelief that would take two centuries for scholars to decode.16
SILENCE FROM WASHINGTON’S DIARIES
One of the arguments we have to assess is the completeness of Washington’s diaries—or really, incompleteness. Boller claims that Washington’s Christianity is not tenable based on his church attendance recorded in his private diary.17 If Washington didn’t note it, so the argument goes, he didn’t attend. But there is a problem here, both with the source and the logic. First, many of Washington’s diaries are missing. Second, the silence of the record does not prove it did not happen, or that it was not important to him. The records of his diaries are important. But it is difficult to make a definitive case from the brief and incomplete entries that Washington made in them. For example, when he presided over the Constitutional Convention, he barely wrote a word in his diaries about these epoch-making events.18 Moreover, he never entered a word about the historic debates that occurred there. Does that mean he barely attended the sessions (not so) or was indifferent to them? By this same logic, one could infer that Washington’s breeding and care of his hunting hounds were more important than the Constitutional Convention, since in his diaries he so often mentions his dogs by name! Here we choose not to follow Boller in imposing an uncertain and questionable standard to discern George Washington’s spiritual history. Instead of arguments from silence, we choose to accent the written words and substantiated actions of Washington to make our case for his Christian faith.
FAMILY INFLUENCES
We will show from the historical data that Washington was deeply influenced by his godly mother, Mary Ball Washington, and his older half-brother, Lawrence, who provided him with careful instruction in the Christian faith as evidenced by his childhood school papers and his school books, as well as by their active family and personal participation in their church. Along with his family’s impact on his faith, we need to also recognize the influence of his religious neighbors—the British noble family of the Fairfaxes that owned vast sections of the Old Dominion. Records show that they went to church together, that Washington was urged by the cousin of Lord Fairfax to have prayers for his troops as a young soldier. His childhood and life-long friend, Bryan Fairfax, actually was the pastor of the Episcopal Church in Alexandria for a time, where Washington worshiped after his return from the Revolutionary War, as well as after his return from the presidency. We will consider the family testimony about Washington’s faith—those who were in a position to know his faith the best. We will find that the family witness to his faith is uniform. In their minds there was no doubt that George Washington was a Christian. Perhaps this is why Professor Boller and many recent scholars pass over this extensive evidence in utter silence, treating it as though it were historically irrelevant.
THE CHURCHMAN
George Washington is famous for being a churchman. During the Revolutionary War, he at times actually rode on horseback some twenty miles to get to a church. The Reverend John Stockton Littell, Rector of St. James’ Church in Keene N.H., in his 1913 book George Washington: Christian19 records a story that reportedly took place in Litchfield in New England, where Washington saw some of his soldiers throwing stones at an old Anglican c hurch building. He said, “Stop throwing the stones! I am a churchman, and we should not deal with the church in this way.” Whether or not one accepts the historicity of this anecdote, Washington’s own records show he worshiped in Christian churches not only in his native Virginia, but also from New England to Georgia as he traveled on horseback through the vast and largely unsettled United States. He went to church all of his life, from the time he was a young boy to when he became a soldier. He led in devotions in his camp, when there was no church or chaplain present. As commander in chief and as president, he sought to set an example for his followers by regular worship. When he became a retired president and proprietor of Mount Vernon, he continued to be a consistent worshiper.
In 1755, Washington played the role of Chaplain when he led a funeral service for his commanding officer General William Braddock. Washington read the funeral service by torchlight, as his British soldiers were fleeing from the Indian warriors, whose surprise attack had killed or wounded every officer. Washington was the only officer to escape unharmed. In the service he read from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, giving his fallen General a Christian funeral.20 The Scriptures and prayers Washington read that sorrowful night by torchlight included:
I AM the resurrection and the life, saith the Lord: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. St. John xi. 25, 26.
I KNOW that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shalt stand at the latter day upon the earth. And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another. Job xix. 25, 26, 27.
WE brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the Name of the Lord. 1 Tim. vi. 7. Job I. 21.
O MERCIFUL God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the resurrection and the life; in whom whosoever believeth shall live, though he die; and whosoever liveth, and believeth in him, shall not die eternally; who also hath taught us, by his holy Apostle Saint Paul, not to be sorry, as men without hope, for them that sleep in him; We meekly beseech thee, O Father, to raise us from the death of sin unto the life of righteousness; that, when we shall depart this life, we may rest in him, as our hope is this our brother doth; and that, at the general Resurrection in the last day, we may be found acceptable in thy sight; and receive that blessing, which thy well-beloved Son shall then pronounce to all that love and fear thee, saying, Come, ye blessed children of my Father, receive the kingdom prepared for you from the beginning of the world. Grant this, we beseech thee, O merciful Father, through Jesus Christ, our Mediator and Redeemer. Amen.
Thus, we know that the lips of Washington spoke the name of Jesus Christ as he shared the comfort of the Gospel through the historic liturgy of the Anglican Church.
Later in his life, he was very active in worship. The records show that he went to church on Sundays while he served in the office of the presidency. When he retired, he continued to worship in the church. For much of his life, Pohick Church in Lorton, Virginia, was his main church; after the War, Christ Church in Alexandria was his place of worship. Both buildings are still standing today. If you visit them, you can still see the pew boxes he worshiped in and that his records show he purchased for himself and his family. What did Washington pray when he went to these churches? They included Christian prayers from the Book of Common Prayer that he prayed aloud with the entire congregation. These prayers are confessions of sin and repentance and calling upon Jesus Christ for mercy and forgiveness. To the retort that the prayer book was not that important to Washington, consider that he not only ordered a family Bible for Mount Vernon, he also ordered prayer books for each member of his family, and specially ordered one for himself that was to be sized to fit in his pocket, so he could carry it with him.21
THE COLONIAL CHURCH’S REREDOS
At the Anglican churches Washington worshiped in or visited, the parishioners would read from the “reredos” during the service. This was a large wall plaque behind the altar with words painted on it. These words were from the Bible and Christian teaching and were usually emblazoned on three panels. One consisted of the Apostles’ Creed;22 the next had the Lord’s Prayer.23 And the third panel listed out Exodus 20, i.e., the Ten Commandments,24 and sometimes included the Golden Rule of Matthew 7:12.25 There was a very practical motive for these texts to be placed on the main wall of the church—books and printing were very expensive in colonial America. This was a more economical means to provide the essentials of the Children’s Catechism and the essentials of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer for an entire congregation.
The authors of this present book visited Christ Church in Alexandria, Virginia, and they have a reredos there. That particular reredos is said to be the very one that was used in Washington’s day. We also discovered a similar reredos when we visited Pohick Church in Lorton. (The Union Army occupied the abandoned and deteriorating colonial brick church building and inflicted further damage. It was restored to a reasonable facsimile of its colonial interior during the years 1901-1916.) You can also see the Apostles’ Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ten Commandments at Bruton Parish Church in Williamsburg, where Washington attended when he was participating in the House of Burgesses. This is true also of Trinity Church in Newport, Rhode Island, where Washington also had his own pew. (Please see the different reredoses in the photos.) As the congregation followed the Anglican liturgy, they would read out loud these holy texts from the reredos.
WASHINGTON’S WORSHIP IN VIEW OF HIS CONSCIENCE AND CHARACTER
Washington was a man with a sensitive conscience and a strong character. We want to take a moment to develop that point, so we can return with a clearer understanding of Washington’s religious practices. Why would a man of integrity engage in so many Christian activities, unless he really believed the Christian message?
The force of this question is strengthened by Washington’s repeated statements concerning the power of his own conscience and his deep concern for his character.26 To General Nathanael Greene, he wrote on October 6, 1781, “I bore much for the sake of peace and the public good. My conscience tells me I acted rightly in these transactions, and should they ever come to the knowledge of the world I trust I shall stand acquitted by it.” On Dec. 7, 1783, he wrote to the Legislature of New Jersey, “For me, it is enough to have seen the divine Arm visibly outstretched for our deliverance, and to have received the approbation of my Country, and my Conscience….” To Henry Lee he wrote on September 22, 1788, “While doing what my conscience informed me was right, as it respected my God, my Country and myself, I could despise all the party clamor and unjust censure….” If Washington did not believe in something, his conscience would not permit him to participate. If he did not subscribe to the Apostles’ Creed, why then would he have said it? If he did not believe in Jesus Christ, why would he not have passed on participating in the service? This is particularly pertinent, since it was his character that caused him to be the unquestioned leader of our youthful nation. Consider what congressional leader and future President John Adams wrote to his wife Abigail on February 21, 1777,
Many persons are extremely dissatisfied with numbers of the general officers of the highest rank. I don’t mean the Commander-in-Chief. His character is justly very high, but Schuyler, Putnam, Spencer, Heath, are thought by very few to be capable of the great commands they hold.27
In this context, consider Washington’s consistently strong words about his deep commitment to candor, honesty, and character. To the Earl of Loudoun, in March 1757, Washington wrote, “My nature is open and honest and free from guile.” To Henry Knox he wrote on July 16, 1798, “But my dear Sir, as you always have found, and trust ever will find, candor a prominent trait of my character.” To President John Adams, he wrote on September 25, 1798, “…let the purity of my intentions; the candor of my declarations; and a due respect for my own character, be received as an apology.” In the same letter he said, “…I would have told you with the frankness and candor which I hope will ever mark my character….” To General Gates he wrote on January 4, 1778, “Thus Sir, with an openness and candor which I hope will ever characterize and mark my conduct have I complied with your request.” To James McHenry, he wrote on April 8, 1794, “…with my inauguration, I resolved firmly, that no man should ever charge me justly with deception.” He wrote from Valley Forge on January 2, 1778 to the President of Congress, “I did not, nor shall I ever [accept a gentleman as a friend that I regard as an enemy], till I am capable of the arts of dissimulation. These I despise….” In other words, Washington sought to act so that he could not be accused of telling lies. To Alexander Hamilton, he wrote on August 28, 1788, “I hope I shall always possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain (what I consider the most enviable of all titles) the character of an honest man….” To Edmund Randolph, July 31, 1795, “I am [not] disposed to quit the ground I have taken, unless circumstances more imperious than have yet come to my knowledge should compel it; for there is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily.” He wrote to Timothy Pickering, February 10, 1799, “Concealment is a species of misinformation.” To Timothy Pickering, August 29, 1797, “Candor is not a more conspicuous trait in the character of Governments than it is of individuals.” To James Madison, November 30, 1785, “It is an old adage, that honesty is the best policy. This applies to public as well as private life, to States as well as individuals.” To Richard Washington, April 15, 1757, “What can be so proper as the truth?”
To say Washington was a Deist—even a “soft Deist”—would imply that he did not have a problem violating his conscience each time he worshiped in his church. It is difficult to imagine how Washington, with his expressed concern for his character and his open commitment to honesty and candor, along with his sensitive conscience, could repeatedly and consistently make a public reaffirmation of a faith that he really did not believe.
The burden of proof is clearly on the side of those who claim that Washington was a Deist. To Washington, integrity and conscience were vitally important. A good conscience and hope of divine approval were essential for Washington’s sense of integrity. Thus he wrote August 18, 1786, to Marquis de Chastellux, “Perhaps nothing can excite more perfect harmony in the soul than to have this string [avoidance of vanity and false humility] vibrate in unison with the internal consciousness of rectitude in our intentions and an humble hope of approbation from the supreme disposer of all things.”
As a man of honor, he did not determine his actions for outward recognition. To his friend the Marquis De Chastellux, he wrote on August 18, 1786, “I consider it an indubitable mark of mean-spiritedness and pitiful vanity to court applause from the pen or tongue of man.” To Dr. James Craik, March 25, 1784 he wrote, “I will frankly declare to you, my dear doctor, that any memoirs of my life, distinct and unconnected with the general history of the war, would rather hurt my feelings than tickle my pride whilst I lived. I had rather glide gently down the stream of life, leaving it to posterity to think and say what they please of me, than by any act of mine to have vanity or ostentation imputed to me . . . I do not think vanity is a trait of my character.”
George Washington was either a true churchman or spiritual imposter. He once wrote to Robert Stewart on April 27, 1763. To guarantee the truth of his letter, he used the phrase: “On my honor and the faith of a Christian.” Clearly his honor and integrity meant a great deal to him. From this statement, we see that his honor was inseparable from and strengthened by his faith as a Christian.
WASHINGTON AND THE EUCHARIST
One of the main arguments Paul Boller (and other skeptics of Washington’s Christianity) makes is that Washington rarely, if ever, received Communion. This is an important matter and must be considered. First of all, there are eye witness written accounts that the General did receive communion regularly as a young man, when his church provided it three or four times a year.28 Second, there is both oral and written testimony that he received Communion on occasion, both during the Revolutionary War and as President. Third, does one have to receive Communion each time it’s offered to be a Christian?
During his presidency in Philadelphia, it was Washington’s regular custom to not receive the Eucharist. To Boller, this is evidence he was not a Christian. This is, however, not a proof that he was a Deist. Washington was joining many in his parish who left after the completion of the service proper and before the Lord’s Supper service was to be held. Bishop William Meade explains,
If it be asked how we can reconcile this leaving of the church at any time of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper with a religious character, we reply by stating a well-known fact,—viz: that in former days there was a most mistaken notion, too prevalent both in England and America, that it was not so necessary in the professors of religion to communicate [receive communion] at all times, but that in this respect persons might be regulated by their feelings, and perhaps by the circumstances in which they were placed. I have had occasion to see much of this in my researches into the habits of the members of the old church of Virginia. Into this error of opinion and practice General Washington may have fallen, especially at a time when he was peculiarly engaged with the cares of government and a multiplicity of engagements, and when his piety may have suffered some loss thereby.29
Washington’s adopted granddaughter, Nelly Custis, confirms this fact: “On communion Sundays he left the church with me, after the blessing, and returned home, and we sent the carriage back for my grandmother.”30
Washington biographer Jared Sparks suggests a reason from his military days that may have prompted his non-participation. “It is probable that after he took command of the army, finding his thoughts and attention necessarily engrossed by the business that devolved upon him, in which frequently little distinction could be observed between the Sabbath and other days, he may have believed it improper publicly to partake of an ordinance which, according to the ideas he entertained of it, imposed severe restrictions on outward conduct, and a sacred pledge to perform duties impracticable in his situation.”31
We believe Sparks was correct when we consult Washington’s diaries and letters as to what he did on Sundays after church, these provide a reason why he left after the worship service was complete and before the periodic communion service began. In his letters he relates that this was one of the few times he had in a profoundly busy military, political, and business life to handle his vast private correspondence and to address the massive responsibilities of running his huge Mount Vernon Plantation.32 The secret of Washington’s ability to accomplish so much was his mastery of time management. Consider his statements on time. “What to me is more valuable, my time, that I most regard,” he wrote to James McHenry, September 14, 1799. Similarly, he wrote to James Anderson on December 10, 1799, “…time, which is of more importance than is generally imagined.”
One might well disagree with Washington’s choice between his personal demands and the participation in the Eucharist. But it is clear that it is a non-sequitur to infer, as Boller and those who argue for Washington’s Deism do, that Washington’s choice demonstrates a disbelief in Christ. His decision to not commune on many Sundays cannot cancel out his faith demonstrated in countless acts of Christian conduct and publicly expressed in phrases such as “the divine author of our blessed religion,”33 and privately expressed in affirmations such as “on my honor and the faith of a Christian.”34
Finally, Boller did not take the time to investigate all the evidence for Washington’s communing, or if he did, he chose not even to acknowledge the significant evidence that George Washington did receive Communion as president. This testimony comes from the daughter of his fellow general, Phillip Schuyler. Why should we trust the testimony of Elizabeth Schuyler?—because her married name was Mrs. Alexander Hamilton. She claimed to have communed with President Washington on the day of his inauguration in New York.35 But there may be an even far better explanation. Two subsequent chapters will explore this question in depth: Did Washington take Communion? Why did Washington not commune as president in Philadelphia?
CONCLUSION
George Washington either was a Christian or he manipulated Christian actions, words, and worship for political ends, merely pretending to be a Christian. Why would he so often refer to God, Providence, Heaven, and the Divine unless he really meant it? Why did he insist on having chaplains? Why did he attend church so consistently, when it was difficult to get there? Was Washington just putting on a show when he spoke about God—even in private correspondence—and for whom? Again, it seems to us that Paul Boller and other modern scholars are remaking George Washington in a secular image, just as much, even more so than the “pietists” that Boller so pointedly criticizes for supposedly remaking Washington in their image. For Washington to use religion for such personal ends may seem consonant with modern and post-modern values. But for Washington to have conducted himself this way, he would have been utterly inconsistent with all of his own claims for his character and the ideals of his era. Moreover, to accomplish this re-creation of Washington, not only is he removed from his historical Anglican and Virginian context, but a great deal of evidence must be either ignored, suppressed, or left unconsidered or undiscovered. Instead, we desire to let the full weight of the evidence be heard.
That evidence includes such humble admissions on his part that he was being saddled with a great responsibility—a responsibility he could only possibly fulfill with the help of the Almighty. We close this chapter with this earnest prayer that he offers for his reputation and with his own promise to seek to perform his daunting duties. This comes from the June 19, 1775, letter he wrote to his brother-in-law, Burwell Bassett:
I am now embarked on a tempestuous Ocean, from whence perhaps, no friendly harbor is to be found. I have been called upon by the unanimous Voice of the Colonies to the Command of the Continental Army. It is an honor I by no means aspired to. It is an honor I wished to avoid, as well from an unwillingness to quit the peaceful enjoyment of my Family, as from a thorough conviction of my own Incapacity and want of experience in the conduct of so momentous a concern; but the partiality of the Congress, added to some political motives, left me without a choice. May God grant, therefore, that my acceptance of it, may be attended with some good to the common cause, and without Injury (from want of knowledge) to my own reputation. I can answer but for three things, a firm belief of the justice of our Cause, close attention in the prosecution of it, and the strictest Integrity.36