Let’s begin by noting that Washington historian Rupert Hughes is wrong when he writes in 1926, “…there is no direct allusion to Christ, and the word Christ has been found in none of Washington’s almost countless autographs.”3 For George Washington wrote in 1779, “You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are.”4 This incident clearly establishes that Washington was openly willing to use the name of Jesus Christ. Washington here was speaking to Delaware Indians, who had come seeking to learn the Christian religion and the ways of the Americans. They had even brought the sons of their chiefs to become students in their educational quest. In this context, Washington freely spoke the name of Jesus Christ to them since he was affirming the religious task of the Christian mission to the Indians. In his mind, the Delawares were doing well to learn the ways of the Americans, but their learning the religion of Jesus Christ was “above all” the other matters of their intended learning. We will later consider Washington’s high personal commitment to the evangelization of the Indians or “the Christianization of the aborigines” as he calls it, in the chapter on Washington’s Anglican Virginia and the Christian Mission to the Indians.
Author Paul Boller, Jr—again the author of the 1963 landmark book declaring Washington a Deist that has never been fully answered—seeks to dismiss the force of this quote by claiming it was an unthinking acquiescence to his aide’s theological viewpoint since he was pressed for time: “Secular freethinkers, reacting against the exuberances of the pietists, have been fond of pointing out that in all of Washington’s voluminous writings, there does not appear even a single reference to Jesus Christ. They are in error; there is one such reference. In a speech to the Delaware Chiefs at Washington’s Middle Brook headquarters on May 12, 1779 (which the pietists have unaccountably overlooked), appears this passage: ‘You will do well to wish to learn our ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are.’ But his speech, like many of Washington’s speeches during the Revolutionary period, was probably written by one of his aides, Robert Hanson Harrison, and Washington, who must have been pressed for time, seems simply to have signed the document without making any revisions.”5 The problems with Boller’s feeble argument are patent. First, Boller himself will later quote Fitzpatrick, the editor of the thirty-seven volumes of the Writings Of George Washington, “Washington ‘dominated his correspondence,’ Fitzpatrick went on to say, ‘and cannot be denied complete responsibility for it.’”6 Second, Boller does not have a shred of historical evidence for his claim. Note his words: “probably written by one of his aids,” “Washington … must have been pressed” and “seems simply to have signed.” So much for Boller’s insistence that his case for Washington’s Deism would be made only by evidence that would “hold up in a court of law.” We accept his own verdict of such flimsy explanations, namely, they “must be dismissed as totally lacking in any kind of evidence that would hold up in a court of law.”7
Finally, the implied irresponsibility in Boller’s explanation of Washington’s letting something stand under his signature reflecting his faith and values which he did not believe; and further, his having a subordinate who was so unaware of his commanding officer’s real beliefs that he would unwittingly impose them on his chief; and on top of this, for it to have been done in such a hurried non-methodical manner, especially when he was acting on behalf of the Congress of the United States, his ultimate superiors, …all make Boller’s argument so unlike all that is known about Washington’s character and conduct, that it exposes the utter unhistorical depths to which the skeptics must stoop to make Washington into a Deist!
And since this quote is Washington’s, which all the facts indicate it must be, it alone utterly destroys the thesis that Washington was a Deist. No Deist would, or could, say that “above all” learning available to a student, the best is to learn “the religion of Jesus Christ.” Boller, who often seeks to compare Washington to Jefferson and Paine, will not find even a hint of such praise for the Christian religion in their writings. The inescapable conclusion is that Washington was a Christian.
JESUS, HUMAN OR DIVINE?
Nevertheless, Washington scholar Rupert Hughes argued, “Jefferson said that Washington was a Deist.”8 But even Washington recognized the possibility that Jefferson may not have understood matters that were important to him.9 The reliability of Jefferson’s assessment of Washington is at least unclear, given that Washington’s most gracious appeal could not prevent him from resigning his position as Secretary of State on Washington’s cabinet, due to an intractable disagreement with Alexander Hamilton.10 Nevertheless, let’s take Hughes’ claim seriously.
If Washington were a Deist, he would have seen Jesus merely as a human, albeit perhaps an extraordinary teacher and a unique religious personality.11 This is important for our discussion, because when one takes a mere human view of Jesus, as did Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, it actually causes one to be more casual in referring to Jesus. After all, in the view of the Deist, Jesus was only a man, even though a noteworthy person of history.
But for those who hold an historic Christian view of Jesus, He is “fully God and fully man in one person.” This was the view of Washington’s Anglican tradition that followed the ancient Council of Chalcedon.12 In fact, the 1662 Book Of Common Prayer that Washington worshipped with until the birth of the Episcopal Church in 1789,13 required the regular use of what has been called the Athanasian Creed.14 At the conclusion of the Evening Prayer, the heading of Washington’s 1662 Book of Common Prayer gave this instruction: “Upon these Feasts; Christmas-day, the Epiphany, S. Matthias, Easter-day, Ascension-day, Whitsunday, S. John Baptist, S. James, S. Bartholomew, S. Matthew, S. Simon and S. Jude, S. Andrew, and upon Trinity-Sunday, shall be sung or said at Morning Prayer, instead of the Apostles Creed, this Confession of our Christian faith, commonly called the Creed of S. Athanasius, by the Minister and People Standing.” So on some thirteen Sundays each year, the Anglican Church affirmed these historic words of faith in the Trinity. If we very conservatively assume that Washington only made one of these Sunday services each year of his life until he became President at the age of fifty-seven, and at which time the newly organized American Episcopal Book of Common Prayer made this creed optional, that means that he would have already publicly affirmed the following words some fifty times:
Whoever will be saved: before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholick Faith. Which faith, except every one do keep whole and undefiled: without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholick faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son: and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one: the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible: and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals: but one eternal….So the Father is God, the son is God and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods: but one God . . . And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other: none is greater or less than another; But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together: and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid: The Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved: must thus think of the Trinity.
Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation: that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess: that our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, is God and man; God of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds: and man of the Substance of his mother, born in the world. Perfect God and perfect man: of reasonable soul, and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead: and inferior to the Father, as touching his Manhood. Who although he be God, and Man: yet he is not two, but one Christ;…Who suffered for our salvation: descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven; he sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty: from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies: and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good, shall go into life everlasting: and they that have done evil, into ever lasting fire. This is the Catholick Faith: which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.15
The point to see here is that these words, (not to mention those found in the Apostles Creed), which no Deist could honestly recite, were for a devout Anglican a declaration that the name of Jesus was not just a human name, but a divine name too. As we will see over and over in this book, those who hold that Washington was a Deist have ripped him out of his eighteenth century Anglican context.
THE HISTORICAL ANGLICAN CONCERN FOR THE SACRED NAME OF JESUS
It was not merely a commonplace fact of historical discussion when one spoke of Christ. Rather, Jesus was a sacred name that had to be guarded and kept holy. Accordingly, as the rerodos—the wall behind the altar with sacred writings—that Washington read from instructed him: “Thou shalt not use God’s name in vain.” His childhood “Rules of Civility” reinforced this in rule 108, “When you speak of God or his attributes, let it be seriously and with reverence.” Thus in his commonplace activities of farming, military action, business, and politics, the holy name of Jesus Christ would not normally be spoken aloud, if one is outside of a worship setting. In this instance, to “avoid” speaking or writing this holy name should not be construed as an act of unbelief, but of reverence instead.16 A parallel with the Jewish tradition is observable here. Observant Jews have historically avoided speaking the name of Jehovah (YHWH); similarly, Christians have avoided saying the name of Jesus in common parlance.
The careful personal use of Christ’s name by a devout Anglican in the eighteenth century would have been coupled with an equal concern to prevent the profane use of his sacred name. Deists, by contrast, not sharing these scruples, might actually use Jesus’ name far more frequently. Such is the case with Jefferson and Paine. Jefferson often speaks of Jesus from his Unitarian perspective17 that denied both the miracles and the deity of Jesus, but nevertheless honored his teaching.18 Paine’s Age Of Reason refers to the human Jesus often since, in his view, Jesus is not divine.19 But if one holds to the full deity of Christ, as expressed in the Nicene Creed20 (from the 1789 American edition of the Book Of Common Prayer) that Washington regularly recited as President until his death, there is a deep feeling of reverence that is coupled with the name of Jesus Christ that seeks to preserve the sanctity of Christ’s name.
We believe that this is exactly what is found in Washington’s writings. In his General Orders, for example, he declares that his “feelings” had been “continually wounded” by the profanity and swearing of the soldiers. In his General Orders of July 29, 1779, he declares,
Many and pointed orders have been issued against that unmeaning and abominable custom of Swearing, not withstanding which, with much regret the General observes that it prevails, if possible, more than ever; His feelings are continually wounded by the Oaths and Imprecations of the soldiers whenever he is in hearing of them.
The Name of That Being, from whose bountiful goodness we are permitted to exist and enjoy the comforts of life is incessantly imprecated and prophaned in a manner as wanton as it is shocking. For the sake therefore of religion, decency and order, the General hopes and trusts that officers of every rank will use their influence and authority to check a vice, which is as unprofitable as it is wicked and shameful. If officers would make it an invariable rule to reprimand, and if that does not do punish soldiers for offences of this kind it could not fail of having the desired effect.21
Men throughout Western history, in difficult circumstances such as those encountered regularly by soldiers at war, have resorted to cursing, swearing, and profanity to express distress, anger, disgust, contempt, bravado or pain. The most poignant examples of this are not only when God’s name in general is profaned, but also when the name of Jesus Christ is irreverently hurled in a epithet of profane contempt. 22
HONORIFIC TITLES FOR DEITY
Finally, and consistent with this discussion, we believe that on those occasions when Washington referred to Jesus Christ, he preferred to do so with titles of honor that were customary for his era. A devout Anglican in Washington’s day would have been careful to employ honorific titles to preserve the sanctity of this name that is “above every name.” (Philippians 2:9) Thus, we find in Washington’s writings various titles for Christ intended to bring him honor, and avoid placing his name into common communication. Examples include: “our gracious Redeemer,”23 “Divine Author of our blessed Religion,”24 “the great Lord and Ruler of Nations,”25 “the Judge of the Hearts of Men,”26 “Divine Author of Life and felicity,”27 “the Lord, and Giver of all victory, to pardon our manifold sins,”28 “the Lord, and Giver of Victory,”29 “Giver of Life.”30
Moreover, even Washington’s use of the names “God” and “Lord” and his many other names for deity are likely to include clear references to the deity of Christ as well.31 This is because of the Trinitarian context of early Virginia, well reflected by the Anglican commitment to the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed. The Athanasian Creed of Washington’s Anglican Church insisted: “So that in all things, as is aforesaid: The Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved: must thus think of the Trinity.” In fact, Virginia’s Trinitarian faith is evident in the title page of the Virginia Almanack that Washington used day after day and year after year to record his brief daily diary entries.32 The title pages of these almanacks do not simply say, “in the year of our Lord 1769” but instead they read, “in the year of our Lord God 1769.” The significance of this is increased, since in 1766 Washington did not use a Virginia Almanack, but instead (for some reason) used The Universal American Almanack printed in Philadelphia. Its title page says, “in the year of our Lord 1766.”33 In the religiously pluralistic Quaker city of Philadelphia, the explicitly Trinitarian title “Lord God” was not used by the Universal Almanack. This Anglican emphasis upon the Trinity was later evident in the opening words of the peace treaty between America and Great Britain that ended the Revolutionary War. It began with unmistakably Trinitarian words: “In the Name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity. Amen.”
While Washington was also judicious in his use of the word Christian and Christianity, he employed them much more frequently. We will explore his interaction with Christian teaching in the chapter on Washington’s Christianity.
WASHINGTON’S ALLUSIONS TO THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST
Finally, is it really true, as Boller asserts, that Washington never refers to Jesus in his role as a teacher?34 Perhaps he is technically correct in that Washington never explicitly discusses Jesus’ teaching ministry in any of his writings. But this in itself is hardly surprising, given the nature of his daily work and normal professional concerns. But it is, nevertheless, very clear that Washington often alludes to the teachings of Jesus recorded in the Gospels. Thus there are references to Jesus’ birth and its celebration.35 There are references to Jesus’ death in his childhood papers and in his adult writing: “the blessed religion revealed in the Word of God will remain an eternal and awful monument to prove that the best Institutions may be abused by human depravity.”36 Washington’s lifelong worship with the Book Of Common Prayer, as well as his commitment to the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles Of Religion, give insight into his views of the resurrection of Christ.37
Although Boller entirely ignores them, there are numerous Gospel phrases in Washington’s writings from the teachings of Jesus, the one whom Washington publicly called “the Divine Author of our Blessed Religion.” Washington’s extensive references and allusions to the teachings of Jesus include: duties to God and man (the two great commandments, Matthew 22:36-40),38 eternal rules (God’s Law, Matthew 5:17-19),39 doing as one would be done by (the Golden Rule, Matthew 7:12),40 the will of God (Matthew 6:10),41 daily bread (Matthew 6:11),42 deliver us from evil (Matthew 6:13),43 Benign Parent (Good Father, Matthew 7:11),44 enlightening sounds of the Gospel (Luke 2:10-15; Mark 1:14-15),45 propagating the Gospel (Matthew 28:19-20),46 professors [i.e. believers] of Christianity (John 3:16),47 narrow path (Matthew 7:13),48 thorny path (Matthew 13:3-7),49 paths of life (Matthew 7:14),50 way of life (John 14:6),51 road to Heaven (John 14:5-7),52 pour out His Holy Spirit (John 15:26),53 ministers of the Gospel (Mark 10:43-45),54 the joy (Matthew 5:13),55 house divided, divide and we shall become weak (Matthew 12:25),56 concern for one’s neighbor (Luke 10:29-37),57 give to the poor (Matthew 5:42),58 forgive and forget (Matthew 6:14-15; 5:43-44),59 forgiveness a divine attribute (Mark 2:5-8),60 repent and be forgiven (Luke 17:3),61 God’s care for His people (Matthew 6:30-33),62 your good father … a good Providence which will never fail to take care of his Children (Luke 11:9-13),63 instruct the ignorant and reclaim the devious (Matthew 18:15-22),64 the wise man who counts the cost (Luke 14:28),65 the widow’s mite (Mark 12:41-44),66 appeal to God and man for justice (Luke 18:1-8),67 the millstone around one’s neck (Luke 17:1-2),68 take up bed and walk (Mark 2:9),69 good and faithful servant (Matthew 25:21, 23),70 the wheat and the tares (Matthew 13:24-30),71 war, pestilence, famine (Matthew 24:6-7),72 wars and rumors of wars (Matthew 24:6),73 cast lots (Matthew 27:35),74 the aggravated vengeance of God (Luke 21:22),75 the last trumpet (Matthew 24:31),76 the roar of distant thunder, (Luke 21:25; John 12:28-29),77 raise the dead to life again (Matthew 10:8; 17:23; Luke 7:22),78 life eternal (Matthew 25:46),79 eternal disgrace or reproach (Luke 6:22; 11:45),80 bitterest curse this side of the grave (Mark 11:21; Matthew 25:41),81 powers of hell (Matthew 16:18),82 the demon of party spirit (Luke 11:20-26),83 Lucifer (Luke 10:18),84 angels and men (Matthew 2:11-13),85 eternal glory (Matthew 6:13),86 eternal happiness (Matt. 25:21, 23, 34, 46), and Heaven (Matthew 6:10; 4:17).87
CONCLUSION
As we conclude this introductory summary of Washington’s understanding of Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels, we should first recognize that his biblical literacy encompasses the entire Bible, not just the Gospel teachings we have presented here. We will consider Washington’s Bible literacy in a later chapter on Washington and the Bible. Perhaps in light of the evidence already offered, it is no longer so far-fetched to accept the view of earlier scholars that claimed that Washington was a serious student of the Bible. Be that as it may, it appears that Washington knew his Bible far better than Paul Boller knew Washington’s use of the Bible, given that Boller claimed that Washington never referred to the Bible except “for whimsy.”
The point of all of this is that Washington’s written words about Jesus, his reverential use of his name and titles of honor, as well as careful use of his teaching clearly distance Washington from any legitimate possibility of identifying him as a Deist. Also significant is his life-long worship in an explicitly Trinitarian Christian setting with a Christologically orthodox prayer book. Scholars’ assumptions and inferences cannot overturn these explicit statements. We require written proof to show that Washington, the man of honesty and candor, did not really mean what he said when he wrote in 1779, “You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are.”