If there is one thing America could use now, it’s an attitude of gratitude. Maybe a major factor in America’s straying is the thinking that we have entertained for several decades, is that we made ourselves great, and that therefore, America’s destiny and purpose was ours to carve. Contrary to what our humanist history books would have us believe, America is not a monument to man’s potential. It is a monument to the Gospel.

Generations of Christian martyrs fought with the world, stood firm under fire, and preserved the Scriptures with their blood, so that their descendants could live in this land in freedom, could spread the Gospel to the most distant corners of the earth, and shelter countless immigrants on our shores.

No nation has ever seen success without God’s help, and the nation that refuses to acknowledge that, and to respond with humility and gratitude has always been humbled.

No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed.

President George Washington, First Inaugural Address, April 30, 1789

Today we will hear from an address which President John Adams gave to the officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Massachusetts Militia, on October 11, 1798:

While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence.

But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practising [sic] iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world; because we have no government capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. … Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken and so solemnly repeated on that venerable spot, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government. Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States (edited by Charles Francis Adams), volume 10, pages 227-228.

He does not come out and say it, but their need be no doubt that he is making the point that our Constitution cannot successfully govern us without religion and morality in the people, both in those who administer the government (since they are bound by their sacred oaths of office), and by the populace (since the amount of civil government needed to govern society will rely wholly upon their moral principles and habits, or lack thereof).

I think we too easily forget this truth — even we who are informed on these matters. Tyranny is a horrible thing, but it is the price that a nation pays for its own depravity. Our Constitution no longer binds us, or governs us, because, as Alexander Hamilton warned, we have become “old and corrupt,” and are no longer “young and virtuous.” (1)

I regret to say that all our attempts to reinstate the Constitution through legal and other means, even if successful, would be in vain. Why is this? To echo Adams: “Our Constitution is WHOLLY INADEQUATE to govern a people that is not religious and moral.” We are not, as a people, religious and virtuous. Even the Christian Church of this country is not, as a majority, religious and virtuous — at least, not in the true and biblical sense. Whether we realize it or not, we have taken on a very, very deceptive form of humanism, and by being like the culture, have become like the rotten meat, and not the salt and the light.

Do I suggest that we take our country back by force of arms? No. It is much too late for that.

Beyond the fact that our forms of resistance, humanly speaking, are far too inferior for us to stand the slightest chance, it would only aggravate the evil passions which dominate our nation now. I think Hamilton put it best: “[T]he passions of revolution are apt to hurry even good men into excesses.” (2)

I think we tend to take terms like “war” and “revolution” a bit to lightly; after seeing the approaching horrors of tyranny, we are quick to revert to the Jeffersonian saying that

“God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. … what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” (3)

We easily ignore or forget, as Jefferson apparently did, the dearer cost than lives that war, particularly revolt, demands: innocence. Liberty is not preserved by the people struggling continually with their government; liberty is preserved by the people struggling to maintain virtue. War, and especially revolution, does anything but encourage virtue. On the contrary, it brings out the very worst in human nature. And when a nation revolts, it casts off the established authority, however excessive its power may have been, that once kept the people in check. At the same time, those who are most revolutionary (i. e., those who would cast off all control and all restraint) usually dominate revolutions and revolts. The outcome of such revolutions? Anarchy, and then another (usually more oppressive) form of despotism. Remember the French Revolution.

Every other revolution and revolt has had this fate — except the American Revolution. And the reason for our victory was not due to luck, or to our superior principles. I don’t even think that we could rightly say that American virtue insured its success. Rather, it was the hand and blessing of God. But as Washington said, “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.” (4)

What then, is to be done? A Great Awakening is needed to shake the Christian Church away from the things of this world that have deceived her, and bring her back to Christ. But such an awakening will have to be brought on by more than just supernatural manifestations — it seems that the Church has idolized the spiritual in place of the Spirit, and has sought for the manifestations of God’s power, and not sought the powerful God. When we realize that even the gifts of God will profit us nothing apart from God, then we shall begin the road toward true revival.

To wake the American church out of her Laodicean apathy, however, there may have to come times of severe tribulation. Perhaps only then will she realize that she is poor, blind, and naked, and only then will she run to Christ, and receive from Him heavenly riches, eye salve, and unblemished garments (Revelation 3:14-22).

After the call to revival has gone forth, and those who have ears to hear have heard and obeyed, and those who have hard hearts will fall away, the great possibility is that then Christ will receive His Church. Maranatha!

Anyway, here is the quote from Jay’s letter:

“A proper history of the United States wold have much to recommend it: in some respects it would be singular, or unlike all others; it would develop the great plan of Providence, for causing this extensive part of our world to be discovered, and these ‘uttermost parts of the earth’ to be gradually filled with civilized and Christian people and nations. The means or second causes by which this great plan has long been and still is accomplishing, are materials for history, of which the writer ought well to know the use and bearings, and proper places. In my opinion, the historian, in the course of his work, is never to lose sight of that great plan.

“Remarkable interpositions of Divine Providence are fine subjects, but the exhibition cannot have a full effect, unless accompanied with a distinct view of the objects and state of things to which they relate; it is by discerning how admirably they are accommodated and fitted to answer their intended purposes, that the reader is made to reflect and feel properly.

“Few among us have time and talent for such a work. I am pleased with the prospect of your undertaking it; and I do believe, that with a due allowance of time, that is, of several years, you would execute it well.”Letter to Rev. Jedediah Morse, August 16, 1809

Mrs. Mecomber and Cato have decided to join the FFQ meme! Thanks guys!

“Resolved, That the Revd. Mr. Duché be desired to open the Congress tomorrow morning with prayers, at the Carpenter’s Hall, at 9 o’Clock.1. [Note 1: 1 "After settling the mode of voting, which is by giving each Colony an equal voice, it was agreed to open the business with prayer. As many of our warmest friends are members of the Church of England, [I] thought it prudent, as well on that as on some other accounts, to move that the service should be performed by a clergyman of that denomination.” Samuel Adams to J. Warren, 9 September, 1774. John Adams says it was Cushing who made the motion that business be opened with prayer, and John Jay and Rutledge opposed it on the ground of a diversity in religious sentiments. That Samuel Adams asserted he was no bigot, and could hear a prayer from any gentleman of piety and virtue, who was at the same time a friend to his country; and nominated Duché. See note under September 7, post.]”

…”Voted, That the thanks of the Congress be given to Mr. Duché, by Mr. Cushing and Mr. Ward, for performing divine Service, and for the excellent prayer, which he composed and deliver’d on the occasion.1 [Note 1: 1 Duché attended in full pontificals, read several prayers in the established form, the collect for the day (Psalm XXXV), and then "struck out into an extemporary prayer, which filled the bosom of every man present. I must confess I never heard a better prayer, or one so well pronounced. * * * It has had an excellent effect upon everybody here." John Adams to his wife,--September, 1774. Joseph Reed thought the appointment and prayer a "masterly stroke of policy." Ward recorded "one of the most sublime, catholic, well-adapted prayers I ever heard."] SOURCE:volume 1, pp. 27-28 “Wednesday Morning 9 oClock September 7th [1774]

The Congress was opend with prayers by the revnd Mr Dutche [sic] which he Concluded with one suitable to the occasion. He was much admird both for his Eloquence & Composition & Mr Ward of Rhode Island movd that the Thanks of the Congress be give to him for his Services which was unanimously agreed to; & Mr Cushing & Mr Ward were appointd a Committee for the purpose. It was then movd that he should be requested to print the prayer. But it being objected that as this might possibly expose him to some disadvantage it was out of Respect to him waived.” SOURCE: James Duane’s Notes of Debates 1774 Septr. 7. Wednesday.

Went to congress again. Heard Mr. Duchè read Prayers. The Collect for the day, the 7th of the Month, was most admirably adapted, tho this was accidental, or rather Providential. A Prayer, which he gave us of his own Composition, was as pertinent, as affectionate, as sublime, as devout, as I ever heard offered up to Heaven. He filled every Bosom present.(1) 1. Adams’ more detailed description of this event and the reaction in Congress contained in his letter to Abigail Adams, September 16, 1774″ SOURCE John Adams’ Diary “[September 7, 1774] Wednesday Morning.

An express arrived from N York confirming the Acct. of a rupture at Boston. All is in Confussion. I can not say, that all Faces, gather paleness, but they all gather indignation, & every Tongue pronounces Revenge. The Bells Toll muffled & the people run as in a Case of extremity they know not where, nor why. The Congress met and opened with a Prayer, made by the Revd. Mr. Deshay [sic] which it was worth riding One Hundred Mile to hear. He read the Lessons of the Day which were accidentally extremely Applicable, & then prayed without Book about Ten Minutes so pertinently, with such Fervency, purity, & sublimity of Stile, & sentiment, and with such an apparent Sensibility of the Scenes, & Business before Us, that even Quakers shed Tears. The Thanks of the Congress were most Unanimously returned him, by a Select honorable Committee. We are just now formed, into Committees, and Our Business, is laid Out, which, as We mean to go to the Bottom, nothing but Genl. Gage & a greater Force than he has at Boston, will prevent Our sitting some time.” SOURCE:Silas Deane to Elizabeth Deane, September 7, 1774

Jacob Duché’s First Prayer in Congress”[September 7, 1774](1) O! Lord, our heavenly father,(2) King of Kings and Lord of lords: who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers upon earth and reignest with power supreme & uncontrouled(3) over all kingdoms, empires and governments, look down in mercy,(4) we beseech thee, upon these our(5) American states who have fled to thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves upon thy gracious protection, desiring henceforth to be(6) dependent only on thee. To thee they have appealed for the righteousness of their Cause; to Thee do they look up,(7) for that countenance & support which Thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under thy nurturing care: give them wisdom in council, valour in the field. Defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries. Convince them of the unrighteousness of their cause. And if they persist(8) in their sanguinary purposes, O! let the voice of thy(9) unerring justice sounding in their hearts constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their enerved(10) hands in the day of battle. Be thou present, O God of Wisdom and direct the counsels(11) of this honourable Assembly. Enable them to settle things upon the best and surest foundation, that the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that(12) harmony and peace may effectually be restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety prevail and flourish amongst thy people. Preserve the health of their bodies and the vigour of their minds; shower down upon them and the millions they represent(13) such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world, and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ thy son, Our Saviour, Amen.
(*)MS (MdHi: Journals of Congress [Philadelphia: R. Aitken, 1787], J10.A15.V1). “Appendix” in the hand of Charles Thomson. 1 For the selection of the Reverend Jacob Duché to open Congress this day with a prayer and the congressional comment occasioned by his riveting performance, see these Letters, 1:31–;35, 45, 55(*) Duché actually delivered not a single prayer but two—;a prepared one, which he read, followed by a much longer extemporaneous prayer, which led John Adams to effuse that he had “never heard a better Prayer or one so well pronounced,” and Silas Deane to declare that “it was worth riding One Hundred Mile to hear” (ibid., pp. 34, 74). These glowing assessments were aimed primarily at the impromptu prayer rather than his prepared text, which is printed here.

The discovery of this text of Duché’s prayer in the hand of Charles Thomson clarifies a longstanding puzzle. Historians have been reluctant to credit nineteenth-century claims for the authenticity of the prayer, and some have misidentified it as one Duché read “at his first appearance in Congress after the Declaration of Independence” on July 9, 1776. See George Hastings, “Jacob Duché, First Chaplain of Congress,” The South Atlantic Quarterly 31 (October 1932): 394. See also James Thacher, A Military Journal during the American Revolutionary War. . .(Boston: Richardson & Lord, 1823), p. 145; and Lorenzo Sabine, The American Loyalists. . .(Boston: C. C. Little and J. Brown, 1847), p. 264. The first text of Duché’s prayer available to the public was published in Thacher’s Military Journal in 1823, although the source of Thacher’s text was not explained. A second printing appeared in 1831 in volume 1 of the University of Virginia’s Chameleon from a text in Thomas Jefferson’s possession at his death five years earlier, which soon after disappeared. Other nineteenth-century printed versions are essentially reprintings of Thacher’s. A manuscript text in the hand of John Hancock is in the collections of the Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia. The defect of the texts acquired by Hancock and Jefferson is that neither man was in Philadelphia in 1774 and they were most certainly obtained second hand. Our belief in the integrity of Thomson’s text rests upon what is known of his record as secretary of Congress from 1774 and 1789 and the care he took in preserving their proceedings. The document printed here was copied by Thomson on the first blank page following the index to volume one of his personal copy of the 13-volume printed edition of the Journals of Congress (Philadelphia: R. Aitken, 1787) owned by the Maryland Historical Society. It bears the heading “Appendix. Copy of the reverend Mr Duche Prayer—;see p 11.” And at page 11, which records the congressional proceedings for September 7, 1774, following the entry “the Meeting was opened with Prayers by the Reverend Mr. Duche,” Thomson wrote “see the appendix.” A comparison of Thomson’s text with the three earliest texts traced to John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, and James Thacher reveals several, generally minor, textual variations, the most significant of which are recorded in the notes below. No clear evolution between these texts is apparent. The Jefferson and Thacher texts are printed as single paragraphs; the Hancock text produces Thomson’s first two paragraphs as one.

2 “High & mighty” precedes “King of Kings” in the Hancock, Jefferson, and Thacher texts.
3 “& uncontrouled” omitted in the Jefferson text.
4 “with mercy” in the Jefferson text.
5 “our” omitted in the Hancock text.
6 “to be” precedes “henceforth” in the Hancock, Jefferson, and Thacher texts.
7 “they now look up” in the Hancock, Jefferson, and Thacher texts.
8 “still persist” in the Hancock, Jefferson, and Thacher texts.
9 “thine own” in the Hancock text.
10 “unnerved” in the Hancock, Jefferson, and Thacher texts.
11 “councils” in the three other texts.
12 “that Order, Harmony & Peace” in the three other texts.
13 “they here represent” in the three other texts.”

(*)MS (MdHi: Journals of Congress [Philadelphia: R. Aitken, 1787], J10.A15.V1). “Appendix” in the hand of Charles Thomson.(*) SOURCE:Letters of the Delegates to Congress, volume 25, pages 551-552

More information on the first prayer in Congress can be found here:
John Adams to Abigail Adams, September 16, 1774

James Duane’s Notes of Debates, entry for September 6, 1774

NOTE: In the middle of the war, Rev. Duche, for reasons uncertain, came to believe that resistance to Britain was futile, and urged General Washington and the Continental Congress to surrender, which they refused to do (see the discussion in this post’s comment section). Duche traveled to England, but upon the success of the Americans in the War for Independence and in establishing their own government, Duche wrote to the new United States President George Washington, a letter dated August 7, 1789, in which he expressed his change of mind back to the American cause he originally espoused when he offered the first prayer at the Continental Congress.

“The authenticity of this journal has been questioned, but handwriting experts from Washington City, Philadelphia, and New York City in the early twentieth century have verified the handwriting of the manuscript to be Washington’s.”

This is not true. No handwriting expert has ever shown his alleged prayer journal to be in his own hand (and btw, the “Circular to the States” was not in his hand either) but the contrary that it was NOT in his hand.

You might also want to check out what Washington’s own minister, Dr. Abercrombie, had to say on whether GW was a “real Christian” or not.

These are all good objections. But I reply, that, on the contrary, several experts and professors have said that this prayer journal is indeed Washington’s, including W. Herbert Burk, who wrote a book republishing the prayers in 1907 (this book is rare, but it is available through the New York Public Library, which also holds a facsimile of the manuscript itself), and Professor S. F. Upham of Drew Theological University also acknowledged the writing to be Washington’s. William J. Johnson, author of George Washington: The Christian claims that “experts in Washington City, Philadelphia, and New York are satisfied that it is Washington’s handwriting without doubt.” Furthermore, the manuscript in question was found among the papers of Washington still belonging to his descendants Lawrence Washington, Bushrod C. Washington, and J. R. C. Lewis in 1891. It is true that not all professors are convinced, but historians never agree on things most of the time anyway.As to the “Circular Letter to the States,” it is true that there is no surviving copy in Washington’s own hand. But it was not unusual for many of Washington’s letters to be written by an aide-de-camp or personal secretary. If this letter were a fraud, Washington would have insured that the mistake of this letter coming from him was cleared, and he usually did. For instance, during the time when Washington served in the French and Indian War, after a brutal battle and tremendous loss in 1755, it was rumored that Washington had been mortally wounded and had prepared a will. Washington wrote home to correct this error. He wrote:

As I have heard since my arriv’l at this place, a circumstantial acct. of my death and dying speech, I take this early oppertunity of contradicting both, and of assuring you that I now exist and appear in the land of the living by the miraculous care of Providence, that protected me beyond all human expectation; I had 4 Bullets through my Coat, and two Horses shot under me, and yet escaped unhurt.

By the way, deists REJECT the miraculous — Washington did not. Back to the Circular Letter, it was probably written at the request and narration of Washington, because his aide-de-camp David Cobb wrote it. (1)

As to the comment by Rev. Abercrombie, he believed that Washington was a deist because Washington did not participate (after the Revolutionary War, anyways,) in communion services in Abercrombie’s church — like that PROVES Washington is a DEIST!!! Washington did take communion (mostly on important occasions) in other churches, but whether he did or not does not have anything to do with his Christianity.

But let’s say that that his prayer journal was not written by him — he was seen praying by a number of people (friends, a nephew, his adopted granddaughter, his aide-de-camps, messengers, etc.).

Let’s say that the “Divine Author” portion of the Circular Letter proved to be not 100% inspired by Washington — his “Farewell Address” expresses the same sentiment expressed in that portion of the Circular Letter:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness. … And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.

There is still too much evidence in favor of Washington’s Christianity than his deism to still assert that Washington was definitely a deist.

What is wonderful is that ordinary Americans like me and you can now access and easily search Washington’s own writings. Several sets of these writings are online, and I link to them on my online library The Founders’ Bookshelf. This collection is the result of four years of collecting the volumes of the Founders’ writings. I hope this proves a great benefit to anyone accessing them, as they have benefited me. The majority of what I know about the Founding Fathers has come from eagerly perusing these volumes and they are more and more essential to my continuing research (once you get going, it is too hard to stop).

The deists claim that George Washington was one of their group. The arguments they frequently make are that Washington did not refer to God or Jesus Christ, but preferred to use such terms as Providence. Another argument made is that Washington’s friend, the Reverend Ashbel Green, is reported to have said, “while Washington was very deferential to religion and its ceremonies, like nearly all the founders of the Republic, he was not a Christian, but a Deist.” They claim that Washington’s vestryman-ship in an orthodox Christian church does not unequivocally prove that Washington was a Christian, since men who were clearly non-believers, such as Thomas Jefferson, became vestrymen in such churches as well (This argument is logical, but it does not prove that George Washington was a deist, either). (1) These arguments, though containing facts, are not capable of proving that George Washington was a deist. But before that issue is addressed, the key terms in this argument need to be defined before we can properly analyze the evidence itself.

If George Washington is a deist, we need to know exactly what that term means. The World Union of Deists define themselves as Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary (1941) defines the term deist: “One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason.” (2) This deist group states that a deist might pray, but only prayers of “thanks or appreciation” to whatever Supreme Being is out there, and that “some believe God may intervene in human affairs.” Deists reject the miraculous, however, and therefore reject the divinity and atonement of Jesus, the divine inspiration of the Bible, and the direct interaction between God and man, which the Christian calls “prayer.”

The opposing side of the debate, however, asserts that Washington was a Christian, or was at least no deist. The term Christian is another of the key terms in the argument that needs to be clearly defined. The term Christian means, according to Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the English Language, “A believer in the religion of Christ,” and the religion of Christ is, according to Himself, believing in His atoning death and sacrifice, and therefore, His divinity. As a result of this belief, the Christian obeys the commandments of Christ and endeavors, through the power of the Holy Spirit, to conform to Christ’s character (Romans 15:13; Galatians 6:22-23; Ephesians 5:9).

Before the arguments of the deists are directly addressed, another term in one of their frequently-used arguments must be defined. As has been previously stated, deists make the argument that Washington was a deist because he did not use the terms for God that are common in today’s Christian sphere – words such as God, Jesus or Christ. Instead, Washington used the term Providence or some other “vague” term to refer to the Creator. The problem with this argument is the definition of the term Providence. This term is defined by Webster’s 1828 dictionary to mean a particular reference to God as one who superintends and cares for His creation. A deist who believes that God does not interact with His own creation cannot believe in the Creator as Providence. Additionally, as American history-expert David Barton points out, orthodox Christian ministers frequently used the same terms for God that Washington frequently used; and these ministers were certainly not deists! The argument that Washington’s use the term Providence proves his deism is useless to the deist cause.

Now let us deal directly with the arguments and evidence for and against Washington’s Christianity. Another argument which has been previously mentioned in favor of a deist George Washington is the statement supposedly made by the Reverend Ashbel Green, who stated that Washington, though friendly to religion, was not a Christian, but a deist. (3) The reason I say that this is what Green supposedly said is that this quote comes from a friend of Green’s who wrote the statement down; in other words, this statement by Green is only a second-hand account. There is the possibility that Green’s friend misunderstood Green, and misstated Green’s words, or that such a quote is outright false. These possibilities become more probable, though not probable enough to be proven true, when considering a complaint made by Green concerning a letter that had been written by Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson wrote that an address had been written to Washington by a Philadelphian church, and that the address implied that Washington was an unbeliever. Jefferson’s letter further stated that Washington’s reply to the address indicated that the church’s belief in Washington as a deist was justified. Reverend Green, upon hearing of Jefferson’s letter, said that Jefferson’s claims were false, because Green himself had written the church’s address, and knew with what intention the address had been written.

However, even if the statement that Green claimed Washington was a deist is valid, it does not unequivocally prove that Washington was a deist. There is still the possibility that Green was mistaken in his evaluation of Washington. There are numerous other eyewitnesses who were even closer to Washington and who knew him better than Green knew Washington. Among these eyewitnesses is John Marshall, who served on General Washington’s personal military staff during the American Revolution, and who wrote one of the earliest biographies of Washington. Marshall says in the biography which he wrote, “Without making ostentatious professions of religion, he [Washington] was a sincere believer in the Christian faith, and a truly devout man.” (4) This is an interesting statement. Marshall says that Washington made no “ostentatious professions of religion,” which means that Washington did not go out of his way to make people think that he was religious or that he was a Christian. This is a probable cause for how Green may have misunderstood Washington’s religious beliefs.

Further testimony of Washington’s Christianity by eyewitnesses comes from his granddaughter, Nelly Custis Lewis. She lived with him for twenty years of her life, since he had adopted her when her father, who had also been previously adopted by Washington, passed away when she was very young. Nelly Lewis wrote a letter to Jared Sparks, who was then preparing a collection of Washington’s writings, in which she defended Washington’s Christianity. After detailing Washington’s devout church-attendance, prayer-life, and even a powerful indication of Washington’s belief in God’s healing power (something which a deist definitely does not believe in, since that would be miraculous), she finalized her letter as follows: “Is it necessary that any one should certify, ‘General Washington avowed himself to me a believer in Christianity?’ As well may we question his patriotism, his heroic, disinterested devotion to his country. His mottoes were, ‘Deeds, not Words’; and, ‘For God and my Country.’ ” (5) This is a very interesting claim. Washington’s own granddaughter emphatically declared that we may as well question Washington’s selfless patriotism if we are going to question his Christianity.

But perhaps the most powerful rebuttal to the deist argument and the most powerful support to Washington’s Christianity comes from his own writings. Among these is a letter which was addressed to the governors of the thirteen states then in the American Union. He sent this “farewell” letter in 1783, to inform them of his resignation of the post of Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army, now that a peace treaty had been signed between the United States and Great Britain. He concluded his letter with a statement that implies a profession of his own Christian faith. It is as follows: “I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the Citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to Government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow Citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the Field, and finally, that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all, to do Justice, to love mercy [Micah 6:8], and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the [Characteristics] of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation.” (emphasis added) (6). As shown in the italicized phrase above, Washington makes a reference to “the Divine Author of our Blessed Religion.” He can be speaking of no other person than Jesus Christ. The reason for this is that Washington says “our religion,” and then calls the author of it “Divine.” Here, Washington is making a reference to a deity who has authored a religion. The religion to which Washington is referring to is not the religion of Buddha or Mohammad or any other so-called “deity,” since it is perfectly obvious that neither Washington nor the governors of the states to whom Washington addressed this letter belonged to any of those religions. The religion of deism has no true deity that has authored it (except the human mind). The only person to whom Washington could be referring to here can be none other than Jesus Christ.

Another portion of his writings which strikes heavily upon the deist argument is a written list of books that Washington ordered from England for his newly-adopted son, John Parke Custis. In this list are included a considerable number of books that are devoted to showing the validity of the Christian faith. These books include De Veritate Christiana Religionis (which translates as The Truth of the Christian Religion), by Hugo Grotius; A Liberal Translation of the New Testament, with Observations on the Study of the Scriptures, by Hardwood; Arguments in Defense of Christianity (two volumes), by Sharpes; Dissertations on Subjects Relating to the Evidences of Christianity, by Gerard; Appeal to Common Sense on Behalf of Religion, by Oswald; On Indifference for Religion, by Squire; and The Amuranth, or a Collection of Religious Poems. (7) What deist would require his son to read these kinds of books? Furthermore, how many Christian fathers today require their sons to read such books? If Washington was a skeptic, why would he make his son read about the truth of the Christian religion? If it may be argued by the deists that Washington was probably trying to show his son how ridiculous the arguments in favor of Christianity are, then they must answer the question why there is no book in favor of deism or humanism or skepticism on that list or any other list.

The most convincing of Washington’s writings in favor of his Christianity is his prayer journal, which was entitled “Daily Sacrifice.” The authenticity of this journal has been questioned, but handwriting experts from Washington City, Philadelphia, and New York City in the early twentieth century have verified the handwriting of the manuscript to be Washington’s. One of these prayers states, “O eternal and everlasting God . . . Direct my thoughts, words and work, wash away my sins in the immaculate blood of the lamb, and purge my heart by thy holy spirit, from the dross of my natural corruption, that I may with more freedom of mind and liberty of will serve thee, the ever lasting God, in righteousness and holiness this day, and all the days of my life. Increase my faith in the sweet promises of the gospel; give me repentance from dead works [Hebrews 6:1]; pardon my wanderings, [and] direct my thoughts unto thyself, the God of my salvation; teach me how to live in thy fear, labor in thy service, and ever to run in the ways of thy commandments; make me always watchful over my heart, that neither the terrors of conscience, the loathing of holy duties, the love of sin, nor an unwillingness to depart this life, may cast me into a spiritual slumber, but daily frame me more [and] more into the likeness of thy son Jesus Christ, that living in thy fear, and dying in thy favor, I may in thy appointed time attain the resurrection of the just unto eternal life bless my family, friends & kindred unite us all in praising & glorifying thee in all our works begun, continued, and ended, when we shall come to make our last account before thee blessed saviour [sic] who hath taught us thus to pray, our Father….” (emphasis added) and apparently the Lord’s Prayer, quoted from memorization, was then recited. (8) These such sayings are the exact opposite of what a deist believes and they perfectly align with the beliefs of a Christian, which have been stated previously.

There is neither room nor need for doubt that George Washington was a Christian, and not a deist. There is no evidence that supports Washington’s beliefs in deism – that word is not mentioned in his writings once. On the contrary, his writings and especially his prayer journal, which indicates a study of and belief in the Bible (something the deists reject), confirm his belief in Christianity, as his granddaughter so distinctly put it. The only reason that the argument which asserts that Washington was a deist persists, is that unbelievers do not want to admit that this man was great because of his devotion to God; they would rather excuse their own unbelief and claim that Washington became great by reasoning alone, without revelation from the Scriptures and without belief in Jesus. But Washington, as with a large majority of the other Founding Fathers, believed in both, and it was this belief that made them such great men and that made this great nation.

But what is more mysterious and wonderful is little known. Doctor Benjamin Rush, a close friend of both Adams and Jefferson (himself also a signer of the Declaration of Independence) even through the years of their political rivalry, had a dream sometime before the reconciliation of the two men.

A little background: Dr. Rush was not an ardent follower of either political party; he had close friends among leaders of both parties, working in the Presidential administrations of Presidents who were leaders of different parties. And not only was Rush a warm friend of Adams and Jefferson, but of Alexander Hamilton, who, as the years progressed, was less and less friendly with both of those two men. Rush summed up his own political affiliation in the following words:

I have been alternately called a democrat and an aristocrat. I am now neither. I am a Christocrat. … He alone who created and redeemed man is qualified to govern him.” (1)

Benjamin Rush, especially close to Adams and Jefferson, was deeply disturbed by their irreconcilable differences. But on October 17, 1809, Rush wrote to Adams of a dream in a letter that would change the course of the lives of those three men forever. Rush wrote as follows:

“What book is that in your hands?” said I to my son Richard a few nights ago in a dream. “It is the history of the United States,” said he. “Shall I read a page of it to you?” “No, no,” said I. “I believe in the truth of no history but in that which is contained in the Old and New Testaments.” “But, sir,” said my son, “this page relates to your friend Mr. Adams.” “Let me see it then,” said I. I read it with great pleasure and herewith send you a copy of it.

Rush then wrote down the words of the page of the “history book” he dreamed that he saw. (This book, of course, would have been written many years after Rush actually had the dream; so, to save confusion, Rush was dreaming of reading a history book written in the future.)

“1809. Among the most extraordinary events of this year was the renewal of the friendship and intercourse between Mr. John Adams and Mr. Jefferson, the two ex-Presidents of the United States. They met for the first time in the Congress of 1775. Their principles of liberty, their ardent attachment to their country . . . being exactly the same, they were strongly attracted to each other and became personal as well as political friends. . . . A difference of opinion upon the objects and issue of the French Revolution separated them during the years in which that great event interested and divided the American people. The predominance of the party which favored the French cause threw Mr. Adams out of the Chair of the United States in the year 1800 and placed Mr. Jefferson there in his stead. The former retired with resignation and dignity to his seat at Quincy, where he spent the evening of his life in literary and philosophical pursuits, surrounded by an amiable family and a few old and affectionate friends. The latter resigned the Chair of the United States in the year 1808, sick of the cares and disgusted with the intrigues of public life, and retired to his seat at Monticello, in Virginia, where he spent the remainder of his days in the cultivation of a large farm agreeably to the new system of husbandry.

“In the month of November 1809 [a month after this letter was written], Mr. Adams addressed a short letter to his friend Mr. Jefferson in which he congratulated him upon his escape to the shades of retirement and domestic happiness, and concluded it with assurances of his regard and good wishes for his welfare. This letter did great honor to Mr. Adams. It discovered a magnanimity known only to great minds. Mr. Jefferson replied to this letter and reciprocated expressions of regard and esteem. These letters were followed by a correspondence of several years in which they mutually reviewed the scenes of business in which they had been engaged, and candidly acknowledged to each other all the errors of opinion and conduct into which they had fallen during the time they filled the same station in the service of their country. Many precious aphorisms [truths], the result of observation, experience, and profound reflection, it is said, are contained in these letters. It is to be hoped the world will be favored with a sight of them. . . . These gentlemen sunk into the grave nearly at the same time, full of years and rich in the gratitude and praises of their country.” (2)

Fascinating! Every detail of this dream came to pass. Adams, in accordance with the “dream page” Rush had wrote to him, congratulated Jefferson on final retirement to public life, and this letter did indeed begin a series of letters between the two men on topics most interesting to the world, and they both “sunk into the grave at nearly the same time full of years and rich in the gratitude and praises of their country.”

Another detail of this dream is worth noticing. The son of Rush who introduced the page to his father in the dream was Richard Rush. Richard Rush grew up to serve the American public under the Presidents who succeeded Adams and Jefferson, including President James Madison (perhaps Jefferson’s best friend of his latter years) and President John Quincy Adams (son of John Adams). Amazing; the very young man in Rush’s dream concerning the reconciliation of Adams and Jefferson would serve under the son of Adams and the best friend of Jefferson.

It is impossible that the circumstances and details of this dream could have been controlled by the principle persons in it. True, John Adams may have chosen to write to Jefferson on that date because of Rush’s dream letter, but neither Adams nor Rush nor Jefferson could have controlled every aspect of the dream, including the ability of Adams to live to the incredible age of 96 and Jefferson to 86 so that they would both pass away on the 50th anniversary of American independence, and that at the same time! And what is incredible is that Rush could not have written this letter after the fact, giving himself the credit for the foretelling of these awesome events, because he never lived to see the dream fully fulfilled, passing away in the year 1813. Rush’s date of decease is too interesting; he passed away on April 19, the very day the the “shot heard round the world” was fired at Lexington and Concord, which in turn opened the way for the Declaration of Independence, 38 years before.

The accuracy of Rush’s dream, and the impossibility that man could have controlled the circumstances in order to paint this incredible picture, can point only in the direction of God whom the Founders often referred to as “Divine Providence.” This term of referring to God as Providence is, apart from the interpretation of modern historians, anything but a strictly deistic way to refer to God. The term “Providence” refers to God’s beneficent care and protection of the human race (our “Provider”), something that can hardly be in accordance with deistic principles. But I will write more on the line of deism and the Founding Fathers in another post.

For now, however, we can only acknowledge the indisputable fact that God’s hand was indeed involved in American history, as this set of events so powerfully illustrates.

NOTES:
(1) Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, by David Barton; p. 243
(2) same; pp. 198-200