As we have already seen, reason was in the air during the seventeen hundreds. By reason, man now knew he was no longer the center of the universe, but also by reason he was sure he would be its master. German philosopher Immanuel Kant declared, “Sapere aude!—Dare to reason! Have the courage to use your own minds!—is the motto of enlightenment.”2 Alexander Pope’s “Essay On Man” reflected the intoxicating optimism that was the enticement of enlightenment thought: “O happiness! Our being’s end and aim! Good, pleasure, ease, content! Whate’er thy name.”3
This enlightenment spirit sometimes expressed itself as Deism, which Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary defined as, “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 deist 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.”4
DEISM AND THE FOUNDING FATHERS
But this emphasis upon the power of human reason did not mean that our founding fathers agreed on everything, or that all of them became Deists. Norman Cousins has well written, “To say that the Founding Fathers were the products of the Age of Enlightenment does not mean that they had a uniform view of religion or politics or anything else. All the Enlightenment did, and this was enough, was to give men greater confidence than before in the reach of the human intelligence.”5
In fact, some of them, like John Adams, were explicitly opposed to Deism. John Adams wrote to fellow founder Dr. Benjamin Rush on January 21, 1810:
Learned, ingenious, benevolent, beneficent old friend of 1774! Thanks for “the light and truth,” as I used to call the Aurora, which you sent me. You may descend in a calm, but I have lived in a storm, and shall certainly die in one....
I have not seen, but am impatient to see, Mr. Cheetham’s life of Mr. Paine. His political writings, I am singular enough to believe, have done more harm than his irreligious ones. He understood neither government nor religion. From a malignant heart, he wrote virulent declamation, which the enthusiastic fury of the times intimated all men, even Mr. Burke, from answering, as he ought. His deism, as it appears to me, has promoted rather than retarded the cause of revolution in America, and indeed in Europe. His billingsgate, stolen from Blounts’ Oracles of Reason, from Bolingbroke, Voltaire, Be¢renger, &c., will never discredit Christianity, which will hold its ground in some degree as long as human nature shall have any thing moral or intellectual left in it. The Christian religion, as I understand it, is the brightness of the glory and the express portrait of the character of the eternal, self-existent, independent, benevolent, all powerful and all merciful creator, preserver, and father of the universe, the first good, first perfect, and first fair. It will last as long as the world. Neither savage nor civilized man, without a revelation, could ever have discovered or invented it. Ask me not, then, whether I am a Catholic or Protestant, Calvinist or Arminian. As far as they are Christians, I wish to be a fellow-disciple with them all.6
Benjamin Franklin, like John Adams, was clearly not an advocate of the perspective of Thomas Paine. Writing to Paine on July 3, 1786, Franklin declared, after reviewing a draft of the Age of Reason:
I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person; whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a good deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it. I intend this letter itself as a proof of my friendship, and therefore add no professions to it; but subscribe simply yours, B. Franklin.7
In the same letter to Paine, he likened defying God (which the book did) to spitting in the wind wherein it lands right back on one’s own face.
But it is clear that some of our founding fathers did embrace elements of the Deistic perspective. For example John Marshall was a church attender but not a communicant. However, he was converted to the Christian faith at the end of his life.8 Similarly, Virginia Burgessman Edmund Randolph recanted his youthful Deism as he got older.9 Deism’s rejection of revelation in favor of an exclusive dependence upon human reason brought with it in many instances an overt hostility to the clergy as well.10 In mid-eighteenth century Virginia, there was already a growing concern over the emergence of Deism. We can see by a summary in the 1761 Virginia Almanack of a book entitled, An Impartial Enquiry into the True Nature of the Faith, which is required in the Gospel as necessary to salvation, In which is briefly shown, upon how righteous terms Unbelievers may become true Christians: And the Case of Deists is reduced to a short Issue. This was the Almanack that George Washington used for the period of May 24 through October 22, 1761, to write his diary notes. There is a high likelihood that Washington read it in its entirety, since he handled it nearly everyday for six months and because the value of the short 54-page long Almanack was enhanced by the inclusion of informative charts and tables as well as humorous excerpts.11
Meanwhile, Deists in England felt the need to evaluate everything, including religion, in light of the new emphasis on reason. One of the intellectual leaders of the Deists was Lord Herbert of Cherbury (1581-1648), often called the father of English Deism. He wrote Religion of the Gentiles With the Causes of their Errors. His essential articles of faith were: (1) the existence of God; (2) His Worship; (3) the practice of virtue; (4) repentance of sin; and (5) a faith in immortality. These truths he believed to be self-evident and accessible by all men everywhere since these beliefs were rationally based. Undergirding his perspective was the notion that all claims of revealed religion must be tested by reason.12 Lord Herbert found the Christian Gospel by salvation through faith in Jesus Christ untenable under the scrutiny of reason.13
The early English-language Deist writers included the English: Lord Herbert of Cherbury, John Toland, Robert Collins, Matthew Tindal (not to be confused with Bible translator of the Reformation age William Tyndale), William Wollaston, Charles Blount, Henry St. John Bolingbroke, Thomas Chubb, Samuel Clarke, and John Leland. The earliest French Deist writers were Voltaire and Diderot. But the Deist that most Americans became aware of was Thomas Paine, author of the anti-Christian Deistic work Age of Reason in which he declared, “The Christian theory is little less than the idolatry of the ancient mythologists, accommodated to the purposes of power and revenue; and it yet remains to reason and philosophy to abolish the amphibious fraud.”14
DEISM VS. CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY ON CAMPUS
It was inevitable that Deistic thought would cross the ocean and enter the thinking of America’s young scholars. Examples of Deistic thought appeared in colonial Virginia in the context of William and Mary College.15
Ezra Stiles and Timothy Dwight, the presidents of Yale College during the years of George Washington’s presidency, were keenly aware of the threat of Deism to orthodox Christianity. As early as 1759, Stiles wrote to Thomas Clap, then president of Yale, “Deism has got such Head in this Age of Licentious Liberty that it would be in vain to try to stop it by hiding the Deistical Writings: and the only Way left to conquer & demolish it, is to come forth into the open Field & Dispute this matter on even Footing—the evidences of Revelation in my opinion are nearly as demonstrative as Newton’s Principia, & these are the Weapons he used.”16
Stiles’ successor to the presidency of Yale was Timothy Dwight. His approach to the problem of Deism can be seen in his address to the graduating class of Yale. In September 1797, he gave lectures (published the next year at the request of his students) entitled, “Two Discourses On The Nature and Danger of Infidel Philosophy.”17 This publication by Dwight was sent to George Washington by Reverend Zachariah Lewis, a young tutor at Yale that had been Washington’s adopted grandson George Washington Parke Custis’ tutor at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
President Washington responded to Lewis on September 28, 1798, telling him: “I thank you for sending me Doctor Dwights Sermons to whom I pray you to present the complimts. of Yr. etc.” The word “compliments” is an expression of “praise, admiration or congratulation.” Ultimately, we do not know how extensively Washington agreed with the discourses, but they are valuable, because they represent an acknowledged study of what “infidel philosophy” looked like in Washington’s day in the context of a respected college. Given this fact, our purpose here is to capture the essence of what the deistic thinkers of Washington’s day were actually saying about their beliefs and about deistic ethical conduct and practice. And then, we want to compare these deistic ideas with Washington and see if his beliefs and ethical practices conformed to the deistic writers summarized by Dr. Dwight, the president of Yale College. The “infidel” philosophers specifically critiqued by President Dwight included the Deists: Blount, Lord Shaftesbury, Collins, Woolston, Tindal, Chubb, Lord Bolingbroke, Lord Herbert, Voltaire; and the philosophers Thomas Hobbes and David Hume.
Dwight’s treatise is significant for it gives expression to the Christian enlightenment, or the cooperation of faith and reason, thereby providing an alternative to the secular wing of the enlightenment that expressed itself in Deism. Dwight explains, “That philosophy only, which is opposed to Christianity, is the subject of the following observations.”18
Further, Dwight excludes the philosopher John Locke from the ranks of the Deists. Dwight is clear that Locke is a Christian:19
Infidels have been ingenious men; that some of them have been learned men; and that a few of them have been great men. Hume, Tindal, and a few others, have been distinguished for superior strength of mind, Bolingbroke for eloquence of the pen, Voltaire for brilliancy of imagination, and various others for respectable talents of different kinds. But I am wholly unable to form a list of Infidels, which can, without extreme disadvangage, be compared with the two Bacons, Erasmus, Cumberland, Stillingfleet, Grotius, Locke, Butler, Newton, Boyle, Berkeley, Milton, Johnson, etc. In no walk of genius, in no path of knowledge can Infidels support and claim to superiority, or equality with Christians.20
Thus, argues Timothy Dwight: Isaac Newton, John Locke, Hugo Grotius, John Milton, Robert Boyle were first-rate geniuses and believers in Jesus—whereas, Deists were lesser rate geniuses.
THE THEOLOGY OF THE DEISTS VS. WASHINGTON’S THEOLOGY
Dwight next highlights the theological doctrines of the Deists to show in what ways they departed from historic Christian thought. Here we will summarize the thinking and representative doctrines of some of the leading philosophers considered by Dwight, followed by a summary of a theological statement from Washington’s writings to show that he disagreed with the Deists at every point.
Lord Herbert believed that all “Revealed Religion” (viz. Christianity) was “absolutely uncertain, and of little or no use.” Washington believed that the pursuit of the Christian character should be our “highest glory.”21
Thomas Hobbes’ concept was that man was a “mere machine,” and that the soul was “material and mortal.” In contrast, Washington looked forward to a “glorious immortality.”22
Charles Blount declared that divine revelation was unsupported because men could not agree on the truth of it. Washington declared that heaven had given the “treasures of knowledge” to the citizens of America.23
Lord Shaftesbury believed that the scriptures were an invention and miracles “ridiculous” and inconsequential. Washington spoke of the “word of God”24 and found the scriptures to be so trustworthy that he referred to “the proof of holy writ” to confirm the truth of his words.25
Robert Collins saw the prophets as “fortunetellers” and thus, Christianity was based on a false foundation. Washington wrote of the veracity of Christianity in terms of “true religion,” “true piety,” and “a true Christian.”26
William Tindal asserted that the scriptures were contradictory, confusing, and incomprehensible. Washington found the scriptures to contain the eternal rules of order and right, which heaven itself has ordained,27 and the path of faith “so plain.”28
Thomas Chubb declared that God was indifferent, prayer improper, Christ’s life and teachings ridiculous and useless, the apostles imposters, and their teaching unworthy. Washington wrote of “good Providence,”29 and he prayed faithfully as he “earnestly emplored” the “divine Being, in whose hands are all human events.”30 He called on America to imitate “the Divine Author of our Blessed Religion.”31
David Hume, in a notably perverse logic, conceived that what is seen as God’s “perfection,” may in reality be defects, and his truly excellent nature is one of malice, folly, and injustice. Washington wrote consistently about the goodness of Providence, that “all wise and merciful disposer of events.”32
Lord Bolingbroke acknowledged providences, yet argued there was no foundation for belief in them. God was ultimately unconcerned with man, and there would be no final judgment.”33 Washington attested to the goodness of Providence, “which will never fail to take care of his Children,” and recognized the wrath of God, “the aggravated vengeance of Heaven.”34
The clear conclusion from this survey is that Washington’s doctrines stood in utter contrast from each of these representative Deists at every point. He cannot be classified as a Deist.
THE ETHICS OF THE DEISTS VS. WASHINGTON’S ETHICS
The sermon sent to George Washington by young Zechariah Lewis that was written by President Timothy Dwight not only criticized the theology of Deism, but also the ethics of Deism as well. A simple perusal of the Deist philosophers’ ethics summarized by Dwight, the president of Yale, will show that they were as alien to Washington’s personal values as rape, plunder, and atrocity were to the values of his army. As far as we can find, the issue of the ethics of Deism in the debate over Washington’s religion has not been raised until now.
As we consider the vast chasm that emerges when Washington’s ethics and the ethics of the Deists are compared, even the most strenuous advocate of Washington’s Deism would have to admit that it is ludicrous to think that any of these beliefs reflect Washington’s ethics. Washington’s ethical values were distinctively Christian. So let us again compare Washington with the Deist writers identified by President Dwight.
Lord Herbert claimed that men were not accountable for their sinful actions. Washington, however, repeatedly warned his men to avoid vice and immorality,35 and called them to “unfeignedly confess their Sins before God, and supplicate the all wise and merciful disposer of events.”36
Hobbes espoused that civil law was the only true law by which men could be judged, and where civil law lapsed, men were to judge for themselves right from wrong. Washington appealed to the eternal rules of order ordained by heaven as the truest standard of morality.37
Lord Shaftesbury held that there was no true virtue, only virtue motivated by the mercenary concerns of final judgment.38 Washington looked forward to “the benediction of Heaven,”39 and “the future reward of good and faithful Servants.”40 He believed that the response to the goodness of Providence was true gratitude and virtue, and that he must be “worse than an infidel,”41 that lacks faith, and “the man must be bad indeed who can look upon the events of the American Revolution without feeling the warmest gratitude towards the great Author of the Universe.”42
Tindal asserted that judgment is conditional upon circumstances, and men are to consider the circumstances for each offence in order to pass judgment. Washington recognized the need to seek God’s forgiveness for man’s “manifold sins and wickedness.”43
Chubb taught that there would be no ultimate judgment for impiety, ingratitude to God, or sinful behavior, but only for “injuries to the public.” Washington warned of the consequences of impiety44 and considered ingratitude to God a “black and detestable” sin.45
Hume’s reverse logic claimed that self-aggrandizing, living only for self, and even suicide, were virtuous acts worthy of pursuit. Washington wrote often of self-denial,46 the value of humility,47 and sought to avoid anything which might lead one to suicide.
Lord Bolingbroke also affirmed that gratifying the flesh was the chief end of man, and thus adultry and polygamy were worthy pursuits.”48 Washington insisted his men avoid lewdness,49 sexual immorality, and pursue moral purity.51
The ethical tenets of Deism, as here summarized by President Dwight, were viewed with horror in the American culture of Washington’s day. Beyond the Deist’s writings, such ethical teaching began to be openly advocated only at the arrival of the sexual revolution in the mid-twentieth century, and only became culturally normative with the expressive individualism of post-modernity. Yet the precursors for these views were the Deists of Washington’s day. Washington was not one of the forerunners of the sexual revolution, precisely because he was not a Deist.
LIAR, LORD, OR LUNATIC? WASHINGTON’S ENDORSEMENT OF TWO SERMONS
It is clear that Deism was making a major impact on early America. Preachers gave sermons with challenges like the following:
If we regard as we ought, our Master’s interest; if we feel that benevolence to our fellow-men, which the Gospel dictates, and that compassion to immortal Souls, perishing in their sins which it inspires, we shall be led to pursue every possible method, in order to make a determined opposition to the flood of infidelity, which is increasing with such rapidity.
But of all methods of opposing infidelity, none we believe is so efficacious as a holy life. To live the life of the Righteous, to exhibit in our daily deportment, a specimen of the christian virtues, is a constant practical defence of the Gospel. It shows the power of divine grace on the heart, and is a convincing proof, of the superlative excellency of Christianity. While we neglect no proper mean of defending our cause, let us be careful to set before unbelievers, this striking evidence in favour of our divine Master. Let our lives convince every beholder, that Religion is an undoubted reality. Let them see in our practice, that is inconceivably the most benevolent, and humane system, ever revealed to man; and that our belief of it is cordial and unshaken. This argument will certainly carry conviction home to their consciences; and without it no other defence will be productive of lasting benefit.52
One could be sure that a Deist like Thomas Paine would have to smile at the success of his beliefs and also disagree very deeply with a clergyman who sought to stop the advance of his views. Clearly, it would be wonderful if we had known what George Washington thought about a sermon like this. If he disagreed, clearly he would have been in the Deist camp. And if he found the doctrine sound, he would have to have been a Christian. The only other alternative is that Washington said something that he didn’t believe, which runs contrary to all that we know about his commitment to character and personal integrity. Well, we now can answer the question of what Washington thought of this sermon, because he wrote a letter about it and declared his view.
At first blush, it may seem strange to raise the issue of sermons that Washington had read and endorsed at this point in our study. An argument for Washington’s Christianity based on the mere fact that he possessed Christian sermons would not be conclusive by any standard of historical evaluation. Moreover, Professor Boller claims that what we can determine about Washington’s attitudes toward the doctrinal content of any of the sermons that he possessed leaves us in a state of uncertainty anyway:
In only two instances did Washington express his opinion on the content of sermons which had been forwarded to him. In August 1797, when he received a collection of sermons from Reverend Zechariah Lewis, twenty-four-year-old tutor at Yale College, he wrote to say: The doctrine in them is sound, and does credit to the author.” Unfortunately, we do not know whose sermons they were (they were not Lewis’, for the young tutor had published nothing at this time), and consequently we have no way of knowing what the doctrine was that Washington considered “sound.”53
Our research shows that Boller is wrong. The letter from Washington to Zechariah Lewis was from Mount Vernon on August 14, 1797. Washington wrote, “For the Sermons you had the goodness to send me I pray you to accept my thanks. The doctrine in them is sound, and does credit to the Author.”
Professor Boller has seemingly done the necessary scholarly work to establish his point. This is seen, for example, when he assures us that young Lewis had not written anything at the time this letter was written. From this, it is easy to assume that he has also established that we really “do not know whose sermons they were ... and consequently we have no way of knowing what the doctrine was that Washington considered “sound.” Should we trust Boller here? We do not think so.
Instead, we should find the letter that Zechariah Lewis wrote to Washington to see if it gives us any clues. Fortunately, for our purposes, his letter is extant. We do not know why Professor Boller did not consult this letter. If he had, he would have discovered that we can clearly establish “whose sermons they were.” Zechariah Lewis’, July 17, 1797, letter from Yale College in New Haven says:
Permit me, Sir, to beg your acceptance of the two Sermons, lately preached by my Father, which accompany this letter. The political sentiments contained in the one, which was preached before the Gove[r]nor & Legislature of Connecticut, accorded with the feelings of a very crowded assembly; & appears to be the prevailing sentiments of this State. This is the only apology I offer for troubling you with the Sermon. I am Sir, with the highest affectation & respect for yourself & family Your much Obliged & very Obedt Servt. Zechariah Lewis.
As we note the details of the letter, we discover several facts. There were “two sermons.” They were “lately preached.” They were preached by Reverend Zechariah Lewis’ “Father.” One clearly was a “political” sermon, preached “before the Governor.”
The name of Zechariah Lewis’ father was Isaac Lewis. When we consult the Evans Collection of Early American Imprints, we discover that there were three published sermons by Reverend Isaac Lewis. Two were preached relatively close together, satisfying the clue in the phrase “lately preached.” The political sermon is easy to identify: “The Political Advantages of Godliness. A Sermon, preached before His Excellency the Governor, and the honorable Legislature of the State of Connecticut, convened at Hartford on the Anniversary Election” preached May 11, 1797.54
Isaac Lewis’ second sermon was entitled, “The Divine Mission of Jesus Christ Evident from his Life, and From the Nature and Tendency of His Doctrines.” The sermon is based on the text John 8:46, “Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?” (King James Version)
Washington’s letter in answer to Lewis for the gift of the sermons is significant. Again, he wrote, “For the Sermons you had the goodness to send me I pray you to accept my thanks. The doctrine in them is sound and does credit to the author.”55 Washington spoke of both sermons, since he used the word “Sermons” in the plural. Similarly, he referred to the sermons in the plural, since he used the plural pronoun “them” rather than “it.” Washington had only one “author” in mind for these sermons. Thus, the letter comports exactly with Lewis’ letter. Therefore, Washington’s evaluation of the sermons referred to both the political and the more spiritual sermon. What was the sound doctrine in both of these sermons by Isaac Lewis?
We need to take a careful look at each, because both sermons that Washington declared to have been sound doctrine affirm the Christian faith and reject Deism. The first sermon sent by Lewis to Washington, “The Political Advantages of Godliness,” was based on I Timothy 4:8, “Godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.” In this sermon, Reverend Lewis not only affirms the necessity of Christianity for sound civil government, but he also lifts up Washington as the exemplar of Christian leadership. He writes,
In all situations and conditions of life, true religion is of the first importance...Godliness is a term used in two senses; the one limited, and the other more general. In its limited sense, it includes only the duties of piety toward God...that they may be divided into four classes, the duties we owe to God, to Christ, to our fellow-men, and to ourselves.
In the first of these, are comprised supreme love to God, a fixed dependance on, and a humble trust in him, a cordial submission to his providential dispensations, together with conformity to his revealed will.
In the second, are included faith in the mediator, accompanied with a daily and sincere attention to him, considered as our teacher, our example and lawgiver, our advocate and intercessor with the father.
In the third, are contained universal love to mankind, mercy, justice, beneficence, truth and the forgiveness of injuries.
The fourth, comprehends the graces of humility, meekness, prudence, fortitude and self-government.
...[Washington] whose distinguished talents and eminent abilities, faithfully consecrated to his country’s service, have not only in an unexampled manner endeared him to his fellow-citizens, but rendered him the object of the veneration of the world. From that valuable legacy of political experience and sentiment, which he bequeathed to his country, in his address accompanying his resignation, I gladly introduce the following passages.
“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 the courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of a peculiar structure; reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
“It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifferency on attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?...”
The importance of supporting Christianity is undeniable. All the political benefits, which can be rationally expected from any religion ever taught in this world, may certainly be expected from the Christian, and in a much higher degree than from any other, in proportion to the superior excellency of its moral precepts. The candid enemies of our faith confess, that the morality taught in the gospel is the most pure, and the best adapted to the purposes of social happiness, of any moral system ever published to men. If then some religion be necessary to answer the purposes of civil government, Christianity even on political views ought to be preferred to all others, as it possesses far the greatest tendency to promote the important designs already mentioned. If its morals are the purest, its tendency to promote social happiness is the greatest, and therefore good policy requires its support.
It is not however our wish that any thing similar to the religious establishments of Europe, should be introduced into our country. We hope never to see our magistrates employed, in prescribing articles of faith; nor in the exercise of the least coercive power to compel men to adopt this, or that creed, or submit to any one mode of worship in preference to another. May liberty of conscience, in this land, be never violated. But if there be important political advantages to be derived from Christianity, which cannot be so effectually secured by any other means, as appears evident from the preceding observations, then is it as much the duty of government to endeavor its preservation, as in any other way to seek the public good. ...
No Deist could ever have said that this sermon was sound in its doctrine, unless Deists affirmed, “...the importance of supporting Christianity is undeniable;” and that in “the duties we owe ... to Christ, ...are included faith in the mediator, accompanied with a daily and sincere attention to him, considered as our teacher, our example and lawgiver, our advocate and intercessor with the father;” or, that it is “...as much the duty of government to endeavor its [Christianity’s] preservation, as in any other way to seek the public good.” This sermon draws on George Washington himself to make its point. If Washington disagreed or did not wish his name to be used in such a manner, he would have stated as such. Instead, he approves the sermon.
But even more explicitly Christian was the second sermon sent by Zechariah Lewis to Washington. It was entitled, “The Divine Mission of Jesus Christ Evident from his Life, and From the Nature and Tendency of His Doctrines.” In many ways, this article by Isaac Lewis anticipates the same logic that another Lewis—C. S. Lewis—would make 150 years later in his book, Mere Christianity. Isaac Lewis said,
Either Jesus Christ was what he professed to be, the Sent of God, and the Saviour of the world; or he was a deluded enthusiast, who thought himself the subject of a divine mission, and of divine revelation, when in fact he was not; or he was the grossest and most designing, impostor, who ever lived. One, or the other of these, must have been the truth; for a supposition distinct from all of them, cannot be named. If then his life, and doctrines were such, as it is impossible to suppose they should have been, had he have acted the part, either of an enthusiast, or a deceiver, it must follow, that he was the person, he claimed to be, and that the Religion he taught, is of God. ...
I proceed to consider the supposition, of his having been an intentional deceiver. If he was no enthusiast, either he was what he asserted of himself, or the grossest deceiver the world has ever produced. His pretensions, on the supposition of his having been a deceiver, were the most blasphemous, and his conduct the most studiedly deceitful, and the most extravagantly bold, and daring. If then his life, and doctrines were such, as are altogether inconsistent with his having been such a monster of wickedness, the only consequence which can be fairly drawn is, that he was in truth the Sent of the Father, and ought to be received as such, by all to whom the Gospel comes....
The life, then, and the nature and tendency of the doctrines, of our Saviour, are clear proofs of his divine mission. And if Christ received his mission from God, Christianity is established on an immoveable basis. The nations may rage, and the people imagine a vain thing, but the counsel of God shall stand, and he will do all his pleasure. The Church rests on an unshaken foundation, and the gates of hell shall never finally prevail against it. I will further add, that only on the supposition that the life, and doctrines of our Saviour, do clearly evince his divine mission, can we understand the true import of our text. “Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?”....
The most successful engine which they have ever made use of against revealed Religion, is ridicule. An argument in order to carry conviction, must contain reason, or at least the appearance of reason. But by the power of ridicule, a laugh may easily be excited, and the most sacred truths represented in a ludicrous point of light. Though this mode of treating the subject of Religion, has been sufficiently exposed, and clearly proved to carry in it meanness and injustice, yet infidels persist in it, because they find by experience, that men of little information, and still less stability, may easily be laughed out of all regard to Religion. But such conduct as this betrays a weak cause, and evidently manifests, that their opposition to Christianity is not founded in principle, but in enmity and disaffection.
...If Christ be undoubtedly the Sent of God, and the Saviour of the world, then is Christianity not only true, but all-important. Whatever men of prostituted talents may say, or write; or men of vicious inclinations may believe, it infinitely concerns all the friends of morality and religion, to unite in its defense. The gift of Christ, is infinitely the most important gift, which Heaven has bestowed on the children of men.
To have the Gospel supported, and maintained in the world is of far greater importance, than everything else, which can possibly interest the human race. It is of the highest importance in this life, as it respects the civil, and political happiness of society. It is of inconceivable and eternal importance to the future felicity of mankind, as it provides the only possible way of escaping God’s eternal wrath, and of obtaining his divine favor. If then the enemies of our holy religion are improving every opportunity and making use of every art, to disseminate error, falsehood and blasphemy, certainly her friends ought to be equally industrious in spreading the favour of this divine knowledge, as extensively as possible. If they are indefatigable in their work, we ought to be much more so in ours. If they unite all their strength in order to give weight, and influence to the cause of vice, and infidelity, both ministers and private Christians ought to pursue the same measures, in the support of the all important interests of religion.
President Washington was not a Deist, if he found “the doctrine” in this sermon by Reverend Isaac Lewis to have been “sound.” It clearly affirms the Deity of Christ, something no Deist would subscribe to.
MORAL VALUES UPHELD AND VICES OPPOSED BY WASHINGTON
The ethics of George Washington and the morality of his religion demonstrate resoundingly that he was not a Deist in faith or in practice. He desired his army and his nation to be free from the vices that afflicted humanity: “Our Men are brave and good; Men who with pleasure it is observed, are addicted to fewer Vices than are commonly found in Armies.”56 But his men and family had to face the dangers of vice of all kinds.57 In his Farewell Address he asked the American people to,
Observe good faith and justice towds. all Nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct;...Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human Nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?58
Washington’s concern was for men who were self-sacrificing, who cared for character.59
It is with inexpressible concern, the General sees Soldiers fighting in the Cause of Liberty, and their Country, committing Crimes most destructive to the army, and which in all other Armies are punished with Death—What a shame and reproach will it be if Soldiers fighting to enslave us, for two pence, or three pence a day, should be more regular, watchful and sober, than Men who are contending for every thing that is dear and valuable in life.60
One of the ways that the very life of the new nation and the army that was called to defend its liberty was able to survive and succeed, given the many who resisted the effort for independence from within the country and from without, was through the use of the oath. The oath was a promise that one made to man calling on God to be the witness of the promise, and thus admitting that the one taking the oath would someday be held accountable for that promise by God and, possibly, in the court of law on earth. In the historic Judeo-Christian setting of revolutionary America, the oath was extremely important and powerful.61 It was because of the importance of the oath for the work of justice in the courts, that Washington warned America of the dangers of the Deist “mind of peculiar structure.”62
A Deist was far more easily tempted to lie under oath, since he claimed that God had no interest in human activities. In some cases the Deists denied the Final Judgment, so men who had, in fact, lied under oath would never have to give an account of their intentional deception. The oath that Americans were required to take at Valley Forge declared:
I ____ do acknowledge The United States of America to be Free, Independent and Sovereign States and declare that the People thereof owe no Allegiance or Obedience to George the Third, King of Great Britain and I renounce refuse and abjure any Allegiance or Obedience to him, and I do swear (or affirm) that I will to the utmost of my Power support, maintain and defend the said United States against the said King George the third, his heirs and Successors and his and their Abettors, Assistants and Adherents and will serve the said United States in the office of _____ which I now hold with Fidelity according to the best of my skill and understanding.
Sworn before me at _____ this day of _____ A.D.63
As we have noted in earlier chapters, there were various vices that Washington vigorously opposed.
He opposed Drunkenness. Washington was not opposed to drinking alcoholic beverages per se for himself or for his men. Nevertheless, he was keenly aware of the destructive power of alcoholism and drunkenness on his army and on his workmen and their families. Numerous times we find Washington commanding his men to avoid drunkenness, or writing letters to counsel people who were struggling with alcohol abuse.64
Washington opposed gambling. Even as a young man, he could see gambling’s corrosive influence. He wrote this letter as Colonel Washington to Governor Richard Dinwiddie when he was in his twenties, February 2, 1756:
I have always, so far as was in my power, endeavored to discourage gambling in camp, and always shall while I have the honor to preside there...65
Later, as head of the U.S. Army, George Washington issued this directive against gambling on October 2, 1775:
Any officer, non-commissioned officer, or soldier who shall hereafter be detected playing at toss-up, pitch, and hustle, or any other games of chance, in or near the camp or village bordering on the encampments, shall without delay be confined and punished for disobedience of orders. The General does not mean by the above to discourage sports of exercise or recreation, he only means to discountenance and punish gaming.66
In a similar vein, Washington recognized the great danger of gambling in civilian life. As he gave counsel to his nephew, heir, and future Supreme Court Chief Justice Bushrod Washington, he wrote:
The last thing I shall mention, is first of importance and that is, to avoid Gaming. This is a vice which is productive of every possible evil. equally injurious to the morals and health of its rotaries. It is the child of Avarice, the brother of inequity, and father of Mischief. It has been the ruin of many worthy familys; the loss of many a man’s honor; and the cause of Suicide. To all those who enter the list, it is equally fascinating; the Successful gamester pushes his good fortune till it is over taken by a reverse; the loosing gamester, in hopes of retrieving past misfortunes, goes on from bad to worse; till grown desperate, he pushes at every thing; and looses [loses] his all. In a word, few gain by this abominable practice (the profit, if any, being diffused) while thousands are injured.67
This concern runs throughout his writings.68
Washington opposed cursing and swearing. George Washington’s first order was against blasphemy, gambling, and abuse of alcohol. This command came on July 4, 1775. He ordered that his men follow strict discipline and that they participate in “divine services” (in other words, Christian worship services) if they were not otherwise-occupied. Here is what the commander-in-chief ordered on July 4, 1775:
The General most earnestly requires and expects a due observance of those articles of war established for the government of the army, which forbid profane cursing, swearing, and drunkenness. And in like manner he requires and expects of all officers and soldiers, not engaged in actual duty, a punctual attendance on Divine service, to implore the blessing of Heaven upon the means used for our safety and defence.69
This drives home the point of Washington the Christian. He was deeply concerned with American soldiers not offending God by taking His name in vain or by missing worship services.69 The values of the Deists—“minds of peculiar structure”—were advocates of values-free culture, and that was diametrically opposed to the moral order that Washington advocated for his army and his family.
CONCLUSION
Washington’s concern for ethical behavior, and his equal concern for doctrine that sustained such moral conduct, reflected his Christianity. For these same reasons, he cannot be considered a Deist.
While a thoroughgoing Deist either doubted or denied Providence, Washington connected Providence and virtue and called on America to make a vast moral experiment, as he said his farewell to the nation. The experiment is still worth considering. The president wrote, “Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human Nature.”71 The experiment was the heartfelt proposal of George Washington, a Christian political scientist who feared the chaos that would eventuate from a thoroughgoing deistic ethic, the very thing that occurred in the deistic French Revolution.