A common claim of the deistic writers is that George Washington was largely indifferent to the printed Christian sermons that were so important to the early American culture throughout the period of Washington’s life. Thus, Washington biographer Franklin Steiner says that in Washington’s vast writings, he commented on sermons only twice.2
Similarly, Rupert Hughes writes, “Dr. [Moncure D.] Conway, speaking of Washington’s diaries, notes ‘his pretty regular attendance at church but never any remark on the sermons.’”3 Our purpose in this chapter is to evaluate these claims and see if Washington was at all interested, as a means of education, spiritual nurture, communication and entertainment, in the many sermons that were being published throughout the eighteenth century. We believe the clear evidence is that Washington did indeed show an interest in these sermons, all of which are orthodox and many of which condemn Deism, the very view that Washington supposedly embraced. This is yet more evidence that Washington was a Christian, not a Deist.
One of the ways to approach this question is to ask if Washington was actively engaged with the clergy of his day. If Washington was not anti-clergy, one of the more typical and visible signs of Deism, then it increases the likelihood that he was a reader of the many sermons he collected throughout his life and which he had bound and kept on his library shelves.
GEORGE WASHINGTON’S CLERGY
Consistent with the evidence that documents the Christianity of Washington is that he was a man who did not reflect, in the least, the anti-clerical spirit so typical of Deists. Instead, Washington’s attitude was consistently one of honor for the clergy and for the church. There are approximately sixty-two clergymen identified in Washington’s diaries. There are over seventy clergymen to whom Washington wrote letters, exclusive of the many letters he wrote to religious bodies, that we considered above in the chapter entitled, “Washington the Godly Leader.”
His writings indicate that the clergyman he knew were his family pastors,4 his family’s tutors,5 and his lifelong neighbor and childhood friend, Reverend Bryan Lord Fairfax.6 The clergy in Washington’s life assisted him in practical ways,7 such as with introductions of people visiting in a new city.8 He also gave assistance to clergymen in various ways.9 Washington wrote to a group of women that included a pastor’s wife,10 took note of a widowed pastor’s wife in a letter,11 and provided care for the widow of his childhood pastor, Reverend Charles Green, and her estate.12 He corresponded with several pastors as he gave support to the various compassion-ministries that they supervised.13
The clergy were the college educators of his children,14 the chaplains in his army,15 and the chaplains in his government,16 as well as active officers in the army.17 They were missionaries,18 counselors,19 medical care providers,20 sources of military intelligence,21 good citizens,22 scholars,23 authors,24 politicians,25 and historians.26 Given the struggles of the Revolution, some of the clergy—especially those from his Anglican church— became his opponents and enemies,27 yet even these Washington was able to forgive.28 Given these extensive, positive, and strong pastoral relationships with the clergy from his own life, we find that he also had a positive interest in the sermons the clergymen preached and published.
GEORGE WASHINGTON AND SERMONS
With George Washington’s remarkable career, it is no surprise that his life was not only recorded by historians, but also noticed by the clergy, both during and after his life. As the news of his unexpected death spread, literally hundreds of memorial sermons were preached and published across America in the months following his funeral.29 But what may come as a surprise, given the skeptics’ claims we have just cited, is Washington’s keen personal interest in both preached and published sermons. The fact is, George Washington called the divine service—the Christian worship service— inclusive of the sermon: “the most pure and rational entertainment” available to his soldiers.30
The tradition of the time was to have sermons read to the family.31 Washington’s family and personal assistants both record that he read sermons to his family or had sermons read to them.32 His cash records show that he purchased sermons.33 His church often had no preacher, or bad weather or ill health prevented the family from attending services, so it is clear why he as a churchman would have purchased sermons for family worship at home.
Sermons show up in Washington’s life for other reasons as well.34 They were among his family’s early books and his schoolbooks.35 They were widely available, due to the high honor afforded clergy in the early years of America, and thus, widely distributed by booksellers of the time.36 They conveyed important news, such as funerals or celebrations.37 They were expressions of honor, as they often were given to or dedicated to important people like Washington himself.38
One of the earliest sermons to make note of George Washington was by Reverend Samuel Davies, who commented upon the extraordinary providential escape from the Indians at Braddock’s defeat.39 Davies was a scholarly Presbyterian preacher and theologian, who later left Virginia to become the president of Princeton.
Furthermore, sermons were sent by preachers as a mark of esteem or out of a desire for endorsement by George Washington for their work.40 They were even printed by the House of Burgesses of Virginia. As saw earlier in the chapter on “Washington the Low Churchman,” one of these sermons has George Washington’s signature on the cover page. Its title is unmistakably Christian—“The Nature and Extent of Christ’s Redemption.” It was presented before the House of Burgesses by the Reverend William Stith, a professor from a prominent Virginia family, who taught at the Anglican William and Mary College in Williamsburg.41 Since George Washington served on the committee on religion, he would have had opportunity to consider closely the various sermons preached to the burgesses.42
Some have dismissed these facts with the retort that Washington had neither time, interest, nor motivation to read sermons, and even if he did, there would be no way to prove it at this late date in history. After all, Washington clearly stated that he had no time to read books.43 He also expressed humor about preachers—“the lame discourses” of a Reverend Pond44—and recorded his disinterest in connecting with another clergyman, the new Anglican Bishop Seabury.45 He also noted that a sermon he had heard preached in Dutch, since he had not understood a word, had not converted him to the Dutch Reformed denomination.46
We also know that he did not read every sermon that was sent to him. Thus, he wrote to Tobias Lear, “I send with my best remembrance a Sermon for Mrs. Washington— n. I presume it is good, coming all the way from New Hampshire; but do not vouch for it not having read a word of it. It was one of your enclosures.”47
But it would clearly be incorrect to claim that Washington was not a reader at all. The evidence points otherwise. Careful study of Washington’s writings reveals a clearer picture. Washington had a deep interest in books and articles and placed a high value on reading: “I conceive a knowledge of books is the basis upon which other knowledge is to be built.”48
Washington, aware of his “defective education,”49 sought to overcome its limitations through the power of self-learning through reading. The proof of his reading is evident in the copious notes extant in his papers from historical and agricultural books.50 Given his profoundly systematic method51 and his highly disciplined life of time in his study, he certainly had frequent opportunity to read.52 One of the most astonishing facts of Washington’s reading is his written assertion that he had read everything printed on the constitutional debate.53
But how do we know what sermons, in particular, were important to him and in fact were read by him? First, we know that he valued sermons, because he signed them,54 and in several instances thanked the authors for sending them. He then bound them into his own personal hardcover collection of sermons, numbering several volumes in length.55
Along with his own collected sermons, Washington had various printed sermons or collections of sermons by clergy such as Reverend James Beattie,56 Reverend Hugh Blair (published by and purchased from Reverend Mason Weems),57 Reverend
Laurence Sterne,58 “Shipley’s Sermons” by Reverend Jonathan Shipley,59 Reverend Gilbert Burnet on the Thirty Nine Articles of Religion,60 Reverend John Wesley, etc.61 What did Washington write in his letters about these sermons? As we shall see, he commented on many of the sermons sent to him.
SERMONS ALREADY CONSIDERED AND COMMENTED ON BY WASHINGTON
As we turn our attention to the sermons in his collection on which Washington chose to make comment (and that we have shared in our study), we must take careful note of what Washington said concerning them. When we look at his remarks with care, we discover his personal, and therefore significant, testimony about the doctrines he agreed with and wished to see advanced.
We must also note which of these critiqued Deist beliefs. Washington’s views of such sermons further corroborate that he was not a Deist, or merely an indifferent, lukewarm, disinterested Christian. Washington’s “sacred fire” manifests itself in his open and sincere pleasure in and commitment to the theological and biblical concerns of these sermons that he approved.
But before we consider these additional sermons, we will summarize some of the sermons we have already encountered in our study of Washington’s religion.
In the chapter on “Deism: Shades of Meaning and Shading the Truth,” we used a sermon written by Samuel Miller and possessed by Washington to evaluate the claim that Washington’s terms for deity were deistic. Washington expressed his “thanks” to Miller for this sermon.62
In the chapter on “George Washington Versus Deism,” we considered two sermons by Reverend Dr. Timothy Dwight and possessed by Washington to summarize the key doctrines and ethical ideas of Deism. Washington expressed his “compliments” to Dwight for these sermons.63
In the chapter on “George Washington Versus Deism,” we used two sermons by Isaac Lewis that Washington had received and read to establish his views of Christianity and of Deism. It is most significant that Washington declared that the “Doctrine” in these two sermons was “sound,” because the sermons are clearly pro-Christian and anti-Deist.64
In the chapters on “Spirituality” and “Valley Forge,” we used a sermon by Israel Evans to show Washington’s self-understanding of his own piety. Washington wrote to Chaplain Evans and told him that he had read the sermon with “equal attention and pleasure” and that he intended to support the “pious endeavors” of Evans in his ministry. It is evident that Washington’s use of the phrase “read with pleasure” indicates approval. This is also evident when we see how he used the phrase “read with pleasure” in his other letters, when he described other works he had read.65 We discover that he used it in three areas: agriculture, politics, and sermons. The nature of the political and agricultural works shows that this is undeniably an approving pleasure. Washington uses this same language with respect to both pro-Christian and anti-Deist sermons.66
In the chapter on “Prayer,” we cited a sermon by William Linn to evidence Washington’s opposition to Deism. Linn’s sermon critiquing America’s sins emphasized that one of these main sins was the continuing influence of French Deism in America.67
Washington wrote to Linn and told him he had read “the sermon with pleasure.” Again, this is an expression of approval. Washington did not find pleasure in what he disagreed with. For that matter, how could any logically consistent American Deist have expressed pleasure in a sermon whose very purpose was to attack the evils of Deism in America? To summarize, then, Washington’s comments on the sermons we have considered so far reflect a Christian perspective and reveal both an explicit and implicit opposition to Deism.
ADDITIONAL OVERLOOKED SERMONS FAVORED BY WASHINGTON
At the beginning of this chapter, Franklin Steiner and Moncure Conway were quoted to the effect that Washington did not comment on sermons, or if he did, it was only in two instances. Professor Paul Boller, Jr, generally agrees: “In only two instances did Washington express his opinion on the content of sermons which had been forwarded to him.”68 He argues that these two instances are the sermons sent by Zachariah Lewis and the funeral sermon of Sir William Pepperell.
According to Boller, the sermons sent by Zachariah Lewis to Washington were called “sound” by Washington, but since their identity is unknown, they are essentially irrelevant to the debate. The funeral sermon of Sir William Pepperell, to which Washington wrote his “approbation of the doctrine,” was a sermon that no Deist would ever find objectionable. The doctrine presented in the sermon was that great human beings, although god-like, must die like other mere men, as part of God’s moral governance of the universe—clearly a doctrine a Deist could readily affirm.69
We have already shown that Professor Boller was incorrect about the “unknown” sermons sent by Zachariah Lewis. We have readily found them, accurately identified them, and have shown them to be “sound” Christian teaching and anti-Deist in force. We will consider Professor Boller’s assessment of the Sir William Pepperell funeral sermon by Reverend Benjamin Stevens below.
This discussion exposes a fatal inaccuracy that has been part and parcel of the Washington-as-a-Deist case from the beginning. The fact is that Washington did not limit his favorable comments to only these two sermons. As we have just summarized above, in earlier chapters of our study, we have found that Washington also gave his approving pleasure to the sermons of military Chaplain Israel Evans and House of Representatives Chaplain, William Linn. Thus, we have already encountered four sermons approved by Washington that are explicitly Christian and either explicitly or implicitly anti-Deist. And there are still more.
The authors were tempted to include these sermons in their entirety, allowing the reader to experience the text that Washington so enjoyed. However, knowing the difficulty of the language and the depth of the theology they contain, we have opted to summarize the sermons by brief citations from key passages and give a fuller sampling of the text in the endnotes. We encourage the reader to delve into these sermons and thereby recognize just how biblically literate and theologically minded our first president was.
However, before we consider them, how are we to assess the errant scholarship of so many who have argued for Washington’s Deism? The stark reality is that there are only two options, neither of which is complimentary to the accomplished scholars who have uncritically followed the unsubstantiated statements of Moncure Conway, Franklin Steiner, and Paul Boller. Either these scholars have failed to do the research they should have done before making their unsubstantiated pronouncements, or even worse, they have intentionally suppressed the incontrovertible evidence that eviscerates their case for Washington’s alleged Deism.
At any rate, in spite of the pro-Deist scholars’ claims that we should have found only two sermons that Washington commented upon, we must add several others to the list. The sermons we must yet consider here are by Uzal Ogden, Jedidiah Morse, Benjamin Stephens, and Laurence Sterne. Other sermons we will consider in subsequent chapters are by Reverend Dr. John Lathrop and yes, the ever provocative Parson Weems.
We begin our consideration of these next sermons with one by the Reverend Uzal Ogden.70 Washington received this sermon and wrote back to Reverend Ogden, from West Point on August 5, 1779. Washington wrote,
Reverend Sir: I have received, and with pleasure read, the Sermon you were so obliging as to send me. I thank you for this proof of your attention. I thank you also for the favourable sentiments you have been pleased to express of me. But in a more especial mannr. I thank you for the good wishes and prayers you offer in my behalf. These have a just claim to the gratitude of Reverend Sir, Yr., etc.
Thus, Washington read the following sermon with pleasure. After reading the first portion of Ogden’s sermon, one must ask if a Deist would have or could have read this Christian Gospel presentation with “pleasure” and then have thanked the author who had sent it to him for his prayers. The sermon is addressed “To Christians of Every Denomination.” The Christian message of Ogden’s sermon is absolutely unmistakable:71
A SERMON ON PRACTICAL RELIGION
BY THE REVEREND UZAL OGDEN, OF SUSSEX COUNTY,
NEW JERSEY
O that they were wise, that they understood this,
that they would consider their latter end! DEUTERONOMY 32: 29
Behold! Now is the accepted time.
Behold now is the day of salvation. 2 CORINTHIANS 6: 2
...The divine Jesus was appointed by the Father of Mercies to interpose in our favor. He most graciously undertook to restore to man all that he had left, and to deliver him from all the evils to which he is exposed. The Son of God is, therefore, emphatically stiled our Redeemer [Isaiah 59:20], our Deliverer [Romans 11:26], our Saviour [Luke 2:11].
...Thus did the merciful Saviour endeavour to dispose men to be reconciled with their offended Maker. Thus, “was God in Christ reconciling the world unto himself [2 Corinthians 5:19]; restoring us to his favour and friendship.”
The medium of reconciliation, is the blood of Jesus [Ephesians 2:16], apprehended by faith [ John 3:15], with a disposition of penitence and sincere obedience.
With what fervor of affection are we entreated by the apostle to accept of this favour? “We are ambassadors for Christ,” says he “as though God did beseech you by us: We pray you, in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God; for he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him [2 Corinthians 5:20-21].”
A more clear statement of the Christian Gospel has scarcely ever been penned. There can scarcely be found a more clear indication that Washington was not a Deist than his personal letter to the author of this sermon, stating that he had “read it with pleasure.” Professor Boller does not even acknowledge the existence of this sermon by Ogden, let alone the fact that Washington read Ogden’s sermon “with pleasure.”
To recap, Boller wrote that Washington did not think much about sermons, and that while he approved a sermon sent by Zachariah Lewis, it is impossible to know what it said. However, we have located that very sermon and discovered that it was written by Lewis’ father, Reverend Isaac Lewis, and that it too had a strong Christian message. Furthermore, a sermon preached by Benjamin Stevens, Boller mistakenly identifies as one compatible with a Deist world view. This, too, Washington commended, and it was also distinctively a Christian sermon.
To his credit, Boller acknowledges two other sermons that Washington mentioned, one by Reverend Dr. Jedidiah Morse and one by Chaplain Israel Evans. To Boller’s discredit, he does not come to grips with the anti-Deist messages in these sermons that George Washington commended. We have already mentioned Evans’ sermon; now we turn to that of Morse.
Listen to even the title and subtitle of Reverend Dr. Jedidiah Morse: “A Sermon Preached at Charlestown November 29, 1798 On the Anniversary [of ] Thanksgiving In Massachusetts—With An Appendix Designed to illustrate some parts of the discourse; exhibiting proof of the early existence, progress, and deleterious effects of French intrigue and influence in the United States.”72 Its lengthy title and subtitle show that it is a clear statement against French Deism. But with respect to Morse, Boller briefly considers Washington’s letter to Reverend Dr. Morse. Washington wrote from Mount Vernon on February 28, 1799.
Reverend Sir: The letter with which you were pleased to favour me, dated the first instant, accompanying your thanksgiving Sermon came duly to hand.
For the latter I pray you to accept my thanks. I have read it, and the Appendix with pleasure; and wish the latter at least, could meet a more general circulation than it probably will have, for it contains important information; as little known out of a small circle as the dissimination of it would be useful, if spread through the Community. With great respect etc.
Professor Boller’s comments in this context appear to be a fine example of scholarly deflection—noting that something exists, making a depreciating admission about it, and then not bothering to investigate the evidence, as one hastily moves on to another matter.73 Professor Boller’s comments do not address the fact that Washington’s pleasure extended to reading both the sermon and the appendix. That a fair reading of his words included his desire that the sermon and the appendix both have a “more general circulation,” and if that was not possible, “at least” it would be so for the appendix.
So although Washington’s letter does not require us to, let’s limit our consideration only to the appendix, since Professor Boller’s remarks imply that that was what Washington truly desired to have disseminated and “spread through the community.” But Professor Boller did not allow his readers to read what Washington had read. If he had, the reader would have found Dr. Morse arguing against the dangers of Deism in America. This was a continuation and deeper explanation of the theme of his sermon. A sympathetic reading of Washington at this point demands that we at least quote a portion of the text he wanted “to meet a more general circulation.” Dr. Morse’s appendix declares:
...Our political divisions and embarrassments, and much of that Atheistical infidelity and irreligion, which, during the last twenty years, have made such alarming progress among us, are probably but the poisonous fruits of our alliance and intimate intercourse with the French nation. ...
At a time when our holy religion and our government are formidably assailed, by the secret and subtle artifices of foreign enemies, it is incumbent on every friend to Christianity, and to his country, to unite in opposing their insidious and wicked designs. He is unworthy the name of a Christian or a patriot, who, in such a crisis as the present, is silent or inactive. Surely the ministers of religion ought not to be considered as deviating from the duties of their profession, while they unveil those political intrigues, which, in their progress and operation, are undermining the foundations, and blasting the fair fruits of that holy religion, which they preach, and which they are under the oath of God to vindicate against every species of attack.
....infidelity and licentiousness are too numerous, they are yet the minority of the nation, as we will hope and are now on the decline, both in numbers and influence. The lamentable issue of the great experiment, made in France, of governing a civilized people without the aids of religion, has procured for Christianity many able advocates, and furnished many strong motives to the Christian to cherish his faith. ....How much soever we detest the principles and the conduct of the French, we shall most sincerely wish them well; that they may speedily enjoy the fruits of true repentance and reformation; the blessings of good government, peace, and pure Christianity. Then we will embrace them as FRIENDS; till then, we ought to hold them as ENEMIES.74
The words “infidelity” and “irreligion” in his appendix are Dr. Morse’s synonyms for Deism, the driving ideology of the French Revolution. The cure for the “atheistical conspirators against religion” in America, according to Reverend Dr. Morse, was for people to be worthy of the names of “Christian” and “Patriot” by a renewed commitment to the “holy religion” of “pure Christianity.” Professor Boller chose not to quote his message from Dr. Morse’s appendix that Washington wished to have “disseminated” and “spread through the community.” Perhaps Professor Boller failed to have read the appendix. Perhaps he did and chose not to disseminate the message of the appendix, because it negates his entire thesis that Washington was a Deist.
ATTEMPTS TO CUT AND PASTE TO SAVE A THESIS WITHOUT FOUNDATION
We have noted that Professor Boller acknowledged that Reverend Benjamin Stevens’ sermon was read by Washington and that Washington had approved the doctrine in it. He mentioned Stevens’ sermon in a letter written from New York on December 23, 1789 to Reverend Joseph Buckminster of New Hampshire. The president said:
Sir: Your letter of the 27th of November and the discourse which it enclosed have been duly received.
I consider the sermon on the death of Sir William Pepperell which you were so good as to send me by desire of Lady Pepperell his Relict, as a mark of attention from her which required my particular acknowledgments; and I am sorry that the death of that Lady which I see is announced in the public papers prevents my thanks being returned to her for her respect and good wishes. You, Sir, will please to accept them for your goodness in forwarding the discourse, and my request, that they may be added to the Revd. Author [Reverend Benjamin Stevens, of Kittery or now, Maine] with my approbation of the Doctrine therein inculcated. I am etc.
What was the “doctrine inculcated” in Steven’s sermon to which Washington gave his approbation? According to the presentation of it by Moncure Conway and Paul Boller, the message of this sermon is something that a deistic George Washington could readily have accepted.75 But is this the case? Let us permit Reverend Stevens to speak for himself, without blindly accepting the carefully edited summary that Conway and Boller provide, since they have carefully cut and pasted this sermon so that its presentation might be compatible with a Deist’s approval. The sermon is entitled, “A Sermon occasioned by the death of the Honorable Sir William Pepperell, Bart. Lieutenant-General in his Majesty’s Service.”76 First, let us note the introduction of the sermon that was ignored in the presentation by both Moncure Conway and Paul Boller. Stevens introduces his sermon:
To Lady Pepperrell. ...
Although you have less one of the best friends, yet overlook not your many remaining mercies, nor forget the many arguments of consolation, which our excellent religion affords. You have reason for thankfulness, ... you do not sorrow as others who have no hope. The certainty of a future existence, and of the resurrection of the just to immortal glory and felicity, which the Gospel gives, affords strong consolation to those who are mourning for the death of pious friends: and the comfortable hope you have, that he who is not taken from you is present with the Lord, and that he is now freed as well from the temptations as the pains and sorrows of this state of trial, and is with the spirits of just men made perfect, and that you shall ‘ere long meet again in the regions of perfect friendship never be separated more; may justly sooth your grief. Therefore, instead of giving way to dejection of spirit, let it be your concern to maintain the eminency of your character, by giving proof that your religion is your support in a time of affliction, as well as the rule of your conduct in life...I am Madam, your Ladyship’s affectionate, and obliged humble servant. Benjamin Stevens.
It is thus clear that Stevens was not intending to give a sermon that was to be compatible with deistic beliefs. When Washington read this sermon, it was obvious that Reverend Stevens intended it to be a Christian sermon. Washington’s approval of the doctrine of this sermon extends to the sermon in its entirety. Washington’s approval of this sermon’s “doctrine” was given without any limitation. So there is no authentic way that Reverend Stevens’ Christian sermon can be cut and pasted into a statement that a Deist could make, i.e., Washington approved all of the sermon, not just certain parts of it.
In fact, this sort of dissimulation—affirming the doctrine of a sermon, but only really affirming a part of the doctrine of the sermon—would be inconsistent with Washington’s repeated affirmations of honesty, candor, integrity; not to mention his affirmations of Christianity. There was no reason even to address the doctrine of the sermon in his letter, unless Washington had truly wanted to. He could have, as he did on several occasions, simply given a sincere thank you, or not corresponded at all.
Since it is a lengthy sermon, we will do what Conway and Boller have done, namely, give selections of the sermon. But we do this not to hide the Christian doctrine of this sermon, but to show what was hidden by the cutting and pasting of Conway and Boller.
A Funeral Sermon. Psalm 82: 7. But ye shall die like men.
...If such Persons behave well in Life, and view Death in the Light the Gospel represents it to the Righteous; not as the End of our Being, but the Commencement of a happy Immorality: such being conformed to Him who is the Resurrection and the Life, have Reason with Thankfulness to adore that gracious Plan of Things which removes them from this World to a better; although the dark Valley of Death be the Passage thereto.—For then, instead of being abased, they shall be exalted to true Dignity. Then they shall be crowned with everlasting honors. Tho’ their Bodies lie down in the Dust and see Corruption; tho’ they mingle with the common Earth, and with the Dust of the lowest of Men; yet shall they be raised again in the Resurrection of the Just. And at the Judgment of the great Day, those who in this Life faithfully acted the Parts assigned them, shall meet with the Approbation of the universal Judge;—The unerring Discerner of true Worth—and whose Approbation is an Honor infinitely superior to the united Applause and Homage of all Mankind. And those, who have been faithful over a few Things, shall be made Ruler over many, and enter into the Joy of their Lord.
...But before I finish, it deserves Notice, that in these degenerate Days in which too many are asham’d of Christ and his Cross, especially among those who are in high Life, he [Pepperell] consider’d the Christian Character as truly honourable. And as he was favor’d with a Christian Education; so he made a public and open Profession of the Religion of Christ: and his regular Attendance on his holy Institutions, both in his Family, and in the House of God;–his becoming Seriousness and Gravity when engaged in solemn Acts of Worship;–and his Disposition to maintain peace and Order, and to support the Gospel, shew, that he was not insensible of the sacred Obligations of Christianity....
... My Little Children, Be concerned to remember your Creator in the Days of your Youth; let it be your first Concern to be good: In order to which acquaint yourselves with God, with his Son Christ Jesus, and with his Gospel; and live as the Word of God directs you....and you will be Blessings in this World, and happy to all Eternity.... find Consolation in him who so tenderly sympathized with his afflicted Friends in the Days of his Flesh! – In him who is the Resurrection and the Life! – And believing in him may they have Life eternal!
...May we be taught hereby to cease from Man, and to put our Trust in and expect our Happiness from him who is the ever-living God! – the Voice of this Providence speaks aloud to all to prepare for Death; – to prepare to follow him who is gone before us.—Every instance of Mortality enforces with peculiar Energy that important Admonition of our great Instructor Jesus Christ, Be ye also ready for in such on Hour as you think not, the Son of Man cometh. None we see are exempted from Death; – its Approach is intirely uncertain, it can be but at a little Distance at farthest, and is besides such an important and interesting Event, that it demands our most serious Consideration and our greatest Solicitude to prepare for it, that so it may be joyful and happy.77 (emphasis in the original)
Washington’s approbation of the doctrine of this sermon was tantamount to an affirmation of the doctrine that stands at the core of the Christian Gospel. And in so giving his approbation, President Washington clearly distinguished himself from the Deists of his day. No wonder the pro-Deists Moncure Conway and Paul Boller made sure that the readers of their works did not even have the chance to read Reverend Stevens’ sermon for themselves.
A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF FOUR ADDITIONAL SERMONS COMMENTED ON BY WASHINGTON
As is becoming apparent, the study of the role of sermons in Washington’s theology and Christian thinking has never been adequately pursued by either the “Washington the Christian” thesis, or the “Washington the Deist” thesis supporters. As we have seen, the pro-Deist perspective has generally dismissed the whole topic by erroneously claiming that Washington only commented on two sermons and never did so in his diary entries. Instead, we have found several sermons that Washington interacted with in various ways.
Here we wish to highlight four additional sermons or discourses that are important for the discussion of Washington’s faith. These are selected because they further highlight the inherent inconsistency of viewing Washington as a Deist. The first is an important sermon that Washington affirmed and commented on in his diary. Pro-Deist Washington historian, Dr. Moncure Conway, asserted that Washington did not comment on any sermon in his diary, but here we find this to be false. This sermon is by Reverend Dr. Robert Davidson.
A second sermon that Washington considered and commented on was an oration given on the day of prayer and fasting connected with the struggles over the insurrection in western Pennsylvania called the “Whiskey Rebellion,” as it was prompted by a reaction to the excise tax that the government had placed on distilled beverages. Written by Alexander Addison, it is significant not only because it, too is Christian and anti-Deist, but it is also a sermon that Washington wrote about to the author, declaring that he had read it with equal attention and satisfaction.
A third sermon is one written by Reverend Mason Weems. Since most historians have assaulted Weems’ failures as a historian, it has often been asserted that Weems never met Washington. This is an error, as we will see in a later chapter. But it is important to consider this sermon written by Weems, because Washington not only said he read it, but he wished to see the “doctrine” in it more prevalent in America.
The fourth sermon is actually a collection of sermons that Washington received from the Bishop of Asaph in England, comprised of a series of sermons by the Bishop’s father entitled the “Shipley’s Sermons.” What we will find here is that Washington’s letter back to the bishop shows not only his appreciation for the sermons, but his profound respect for the bishop. These comments are utterly inconsistent with what a Deist would have said. When one remembers that this bishop was at the center of a theological movement very close to Washington’s theology, namely the “Latitudinarian movement,” it again becomes evident how closely Washington himself identified with the Low Church movement in the Anglican tradition. (To pursue these questions more fully, see the chapter on “Washington the Low Churchman” and the appendix entitled “George Washington and Latitudinarianism”).
Reverend Dr. Robert Davidson’s published sermon was entitled, “A Sermon on the Freedom and Happiness of the United Sates of America, preached in Carlisle, on the 5th Oct. 1794. And published at the request of the Officers of the Philadelphia and Lancaster Troops of Light Horse. By Robert Davidson, D.D. Pastor of the Presbyterian Church in Carlisle, and One of the Professors in Dickinson College.”78
Washington wrote in his diary on Oct. 5th, 1794 (Sunday): “Went to the Presbiterian meeting and heard Doctr. Davidson Preach a political Sermon, recommendatory of order & good government, and excellence of that of the United States.”79 While Washington’s comments are brief, they express the value he placed on the sermon, since only what Washington wanted to remember and record for future consideration ever made it in his diaries. Certainly he found the emphasis on order and good government and the excellence of the United States’ government, supported by Christian biblical exposition an encouragement as he, as president, was leading an army to put down an insurrection of American citizens. There is no hint of a deistic concern for keeping religion out of the discourse of government in Washington’s remarks. A brief consideration of Reverend Dr. Davidson’s sermon illustrates that it was directly based upon scriptural concerns, and was commendatory of the president and his policy in this situation. Reverend Davidson declared in his sermon:
...the management of public concerns, and the duties of citizens are not to be considered as topics foreign to the gospel, but the contrary; because the gospel views man in every condition in which man can be placed,–and especially as a member of society. I shall not, therefore, need to apologize for the sentiments contained in the following discourse; since, in delivering them, especially in present circumstances, I consider myself only doing conscientiously the duties of my office.80
He continues to discuss the role of divine Providence in the American cause and how thankful we should be for it.81 Next, Dr. Davidson traces America’s providential history from Columbus to God’s providential care of the early settlements. The struggles of the American Revolution occurred since Americans were “confident of the justice of our cause, we committed ourselves into His hand, who disposeth of states and kingdoms at his pleasure...” All of this brought Dr. Davidson to declare,
These things are mentioned, to shew, that when we compare our condition with that of other nations, we may with great propriety borrow and apply the words of the text, and say,—What one nation in the earth is like the American people....Here is liberty and equality, according to the just acceptation of those favourite terms; liberty, civil and religious, to the utmost extent that they can be, where there is any government at all....82 (emphasis in the original)
He then addressed the soldiers and the president, saying,
To you, my friends, who are present with us at this time, in the character of Citizen-Soldiers, allow me the liberty of a short address....You are in the presence of Him who knoweth all hearts; and I trust you are conscious to yourselves, that you have assumed your present character, not from the desire of war, but the love of peace....You have the example of our beloved PRESIDENT, and other exalted characters, to animate you to your duty....You are called to act under the direction and authority of HIM, who never exposed to danger a single life without necessity; and who graced his victories with that clemency which is the greatest ornament of true courage and one of the surest tests of magnanimity. And is not the cause, in which you are engaged, such, that you may safely pray to the omnipotent and just Ruler of the world, for his aid and protection? We are persuaded it is, and would both follow you with our prayers, and beseech you to pray for yourselves, and trust in him who is able to preserve you....And now may God dispose the hearts of our fellow-citizens, every where, to the love of order, justice, and peace! May he establish good government among us! May he long preserve a life which appears so necessary for our public tranquility; and preserve to this country her rights and privileges—WHILE SUN AND MOON ENDURE!83 (emphasis in original)
The second discourse that we consider here is by Alexander Addison. Addison was not a clergyman, but a jurist who lived from 1759 to 1807. This text was mentioned in Addison’s letter to Washington on May 17, 1798. Addison wrote, “I take the liberty of sending a pamphlet—and in a separate inclosure a Newspaper.” Washington wrote back on June 3, 1798, “I pray you Sir, to accept my thanks for the Pamphlet ...and for the Gazette containing an Oration .... Both of these productions I have read with equal attention & satisfaction....”84 Unfortunately, the newspaper article from this time and city cannot be found in any archive. However, a newspaper account has surfaced from the Albany Centinel of the date 1798. This newspaper article gives the following details:
At Washington, Pennsylvania, the late Fast day, the people being destitute of a regularly settle clergyman, assembled together and attended to an excellent oration, delivered at the Academy in that town. The oration furnishes a striking display of the crimes and enormities practiced by France towards all the states whom she has republicanized; demonstrates the necessity of union and firmness in Americans, to thwart the views of that nation upon our property and independence; paints, with the pencil of truth, the infamous and vile arts of the faction which exists in the bosom of our country; and impresses the necessity of a conduct which is indispensable on the part of the friends of government, (in order to check the currents, thro’ which the purelizing streams of deception flow) in the following just and energetic remarks....85
Fortunately, Alexander Addison’s “Oration” that was printed in the gazette from Washington Pennsylvania that cannot be located was also printed in Philadelphia by publisher John Ormrod in 1798 and is thus available to us. Its title was “An Oration on the Rise and progress of the United States of America, to the Present Crisis; and on the Duties of the Citizens.” Some of the important sections of this “Oration” that prompted Washington’s “equal attention & satisfaction” when read included the following:
...the French government have abandoned all regard to God, to government, to justice, or to decency....Pamphlets and newspapers have been continually issuing from the press, for the avowed purpose of destroying all trust in God, and all confidence in our government. No public character, not even the virtue of a Washington, nor religion itself, has escaped abuse and defamation....Can we expect justice from men who deny it to each other? Will those respect the rights of man, who contemn the rights of God? Can we expect any decency or right from men with power in their hands, who deny a God and a future state?....An house divided against itself cannot stand....When an independent and free nation has its sovereign rights attacked, and violated by another nation; it is a call of Providence to all the citizens to stand forth, and defend the cause of truth and national liberty....And in the discharge of this duty, to which Providence calls them, they ought to look up with holy confidence to the protection of that Providence which calls them out to trial, and to the strength of the Lord of Hosts, who calls them to battle. His providence and strength America hath heretofore experienced: And the Lord, which delivered us out of the paw of the lion, will deliver us out of the hand of the Philistine. To a trust in God we ought to unite confidence in those men whom Providence hath called to rule over us.
....Let us unite in one band of unity among ourselves, and confidence in our administration; and, to testify this union and confidence to the world, let us unanimously sign an instrument, expressing to our government our confidence in the rectitude of its measures, our firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, for the support of our independence from a foreign yoke, on this as on a former occasion; and, for this support, now as then, pledging to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honour.86
The third sermon we consider here is the Reverend Mason L. Weems’ “The Philanthropist; or, A Good Twelve Cents Worth of Political Love Power, for the Fair Daughters and Patriotic Sons of America,” Dedicated to that great Lover and Love of his Country, George Washington, Esq.87 The reason that this sermon is significant is twofold. First, it is a sermon by Washington’s first biographer, the “infamous” Parson Weems. Second, Washington wrote back to Weems in regard to this sermon and expressed his appreciation for its “doctrine.” Thus, it is clear that Washington knew of Weems and actually appreciated his theological concerns. Washington’s letter to Weems says,
Revd Sir: I have been duly favored with your letter of the 20th. instant, accompanying “The Philanthropist.” For your politeness in sending the latter, I pray you to receive my best thanks. Much indeed is it to be wished that the sentiments contained in the Pamphlet, and the doctrine it endeavors to inculcate, were more prevalent. Happy would it be for this country at least, if they were so. But while the passions of Mankind are under so little restraint as they are among us, and while there are so many motives, and views, to bring them into action we may wish for, but will never see the accomplishment of it. With respect, etc.88
Weems’ sermon demonstrates that Washington’s affirmation of its doctrine was again an affirmation of the Christian faith, for in it Weems talks about the importance of the “body” as made up of essential parts. He says,
Thus has God, the common Parent, removed far from us all ground of pride on the part of the rich, and of dejection on the part of the poor, “the rich and the poor, says Solomon, meet together, the Lord is the maker of them all.”....Thus, secure in each others protection, thus abundant and happy in the sweet rewards of their mutual labours, they can eat, drink, and rejoice together like brothers, under the shade of their own vine and fig-tree, none daring to make them afraid. O how goodly a thing it is to see a whole nation living thus together in unity!89
Weems’ sermon on unity is based on several biblical texts that again reveal Washington’s comfort with and commitment to basic Christian teachings. By openly giving his support to a Christian minister and author, Washington was again distancing himself from a Deist perspective.
Finally, let us note that Washington was comfortable with identifying with Anglican Bishop Shipley when his son, Dr. William Davies Shipley, sent his father’s sermons to him. Washington wrote:
Sir: I have been honored with your polite Letter of the 23d. of May, together with the works of your late Right Revd. father Lord bishop of St. Asaph, which accompanied it. For the character and sentiments of that venerable Divine while living, I entertained the most perfect esteem, and have a sincere respect for his memory now he is no more. My best thanks are due to you for his works, and the mark of your attention in sending them to me; and especially for the flattering expressions respecting myself, which are contained in your letter.90
Washington declared not only his thanks for the works of the Lord Bishop of Asaph, but he also affirmed his “most perfect esteem” for the venerable Divine’s “character and sentiments.” Thus, Washington’s “sincere respect for his memory” was coupled with appreciation for his ministry.91
To sum up this section, we can simply say that whenever Washington’s view of sermons come to light, he consistently supports sermons that are pro-Christian in character, many of which were also explicitly anti-Deist in focus. This continues to underscore the erroneous nature of the assertion that Washington was a Deist.
A SUMMARY OF WASHINGTON’S MOST IMPORTANT SERMONS
While the pro-Deist authors have arbitrarily limited Washington’s interest in his sermon collection to only two, the fact is that there are so many, we cannot possibly do justice to all of them in this study. The best we can do for now is to summarize the most salient sermons and attempt to show how they relate to Washington’s life and faith. Given the vast number and the complexity of the topic, we cannot include the information in the text of this chapter. But in appendix 5, “A Summary of Washington’s Most Important Sermons,” we have catalogued these sermons in terms of their relevance to Washington’s life and, where appropriate, included his comments on the sermon.
CONCLUSION
As we conclude, we believe the combination of the extensive friendship of Washington with the clergy and his consistent appreciation and approval of their sermons, as manifest in this representative sample, establish two points. First, it is patent that Washington’s response to these sermons is consistently in agreement with the Christian perspective and logically incompatible with the Deist perspective. Second, the Deistic argument, beginning with Conway and Steiner and continuing up until now under the influence of Professor Boller’s study of Washington’s religion, that George Washington ignored the sermons he possessed in his library, clearly has been based on flawed scholarship and flimsy evidence. Instead, as we can see in his letter to Reverend H. H. Brackenridge, Washington was even willing to quote Christian sermons to his fellow correspondents. In this case, Washington appealed to a sermon by the Reverend Laurence Sterne,
West Point, September 8, 1779.
Sir: I have to thank you for your favor of the 10th of August, and your Eulogium [i.e. eulogy].
You add motives to patriotism, and have made the army your debtor in the handsome tribute which is paid to the memory of those who have fallen in fighting for their country. I am sensible that none of these observations can have escaped you, and that I can offer nothing which your own reason has not already suggested on this occasion; and being of [Reverend Laurence] Sterne’s opinion, that “Before an affliction is digested, consolation comes too soon; and after it is digested, it comes too late: there is but a mark between these two, as fine almost as a hair, for a comforter to take aim at.” I rarely attempt it, nor shall I add more on this subject to you, as it would only be a renewal of sorrow, by recalling a fresh to your remembrance things which had better be forgotten.92
Later, Washington again appealed to the sermons of Reverend Laurence Sterne. This was when he wrote to Jonathan Trumbull, Jr., at the time of the death of his stepson, Jack Custis, only weeks after the victory at Yorktown in 1781. Washington wrote,
My dear Sir: I came here in time to see Mr. Custis breathe his last. About Eight o’clock yesterday Evening he expired. The deep and solemn distress of the Mother, and affliction of the Wife of this amiable young Man, requires every comfort in my power to afford them; the last rights of the deceased I must also see performed; these will take me three or four days; when I shall proceed with Mrs. Washington and Mrs. Custis to Mount Vernon.
As the dirty tavern you are now at cannot be very comfortable; and in spite of Mr. [Reverend Laurence] Sterne observation the House of Mourning not very agreeable; it is my wish, that all of the Gentn of my family, except yourself, who I beg may come here and remain with me; may proceed on at their leizure to Mount Vernon, and wait for me there. Colo. Cobb will join you on the road at the Tavern we breakfasted at (this side Ruffens). My best wishes attend the Gentn. and with much sincerity and affectn.93
Thus, there is clear evidence that Washington not only read the Laurence Sterne sermons that were in his library, but that he even had digested them to the point that he could refer to them and even quote them, whether from memory, or by reading them. Since the quotation of Reverend Sterne comes from Headquarters at West Point in 1779, it is possible that this quotation was from memory, since Washington’s library did not travel with him during the war.
As we conclude then, the question in Washington studies can no longer be if Washington read the sermons he collected. It is clear that he at least read many of them (if not all). The question, instead, must be whether the scholars who have written on Washington have sufficiently read much of his own writings. If they haven’t, that is sloppy and substandard scholarship. If they have, and they claim that they have found only two sermons that Washington commented upon, then it is no longer merely a matter of sloppy scholarship. It’s worse—it’s a case of dishonesty. Our founding father is certainly worthy of better research than that.