The story of the Reverend Mason Locke Weems (1759 - 1825), or Parson Weems as he is usually titled, is a fascinating topic for Washington studies. The reason is evident: Weems’ biography of Washington was the first bestseller on Washington’s life. We have intentionally developed our study of the religious ideas of George Washington without dependence on Weems’ biography. Nevertheless, neither Weems’ life nor his writings can be entirely ignored. And once again, as in other aspects of Washington and religion, a deeper look at the existing evidence argues for the authenticity of our first president’s Christianity.
Born in Maryland, Mason Weems was the youngest of nineteen children. He first studied medicine. Later he pursued theology, and in 1784 he was one of the first two Americans to be ordained in the Church of England after the Revolutionary War. He preached for several years in Maryland churches and eventually added to his ministry the publishing and sales of religious books. He wrote several books, including such fascinating titles as: Hymen’s Recruiting Sargeant, or The New Matrimonial Tat-too for Old Bachelors; The Philanthropist, or a Good Twenty-Five Cents Worth of Political Love-Powder; God’s Revenge Against Dueling; God’s Revenge Against Gambling; God’s Revenge Against Adultery. He wrote a biography of Francis Marion—the famous “swamp fox,” (who was the chief inspiration for Mel Gibson’s The Patriot) as well as publishing other books aimed at producing good morals or answering the deistic views of Thomas Paine.
WEEMS’ LIFE OF WASHINGTON
But far beyond these titles, we must recognize the sheer impact Parson Weems’ The Life of Washington has had on the American historical consciousness of Washington. His biography became wildly successful and went through many printings. First published in 1800, it was so popular that some fifty-nine editions had appeared before 1850. Weems’ bestseller even made a significant impact on the youthful Abraham Lincoln. Weems’ masterwork is still in print as an important historical work.2
The first edition was being written while Washington was alive and began with Weems’ inscription:
Go thy way old George. Die when thou wilt,
We shall not look upon thy like again.
But Washington died on December 14, 1799, and accordingly, these opening lines were deleted. The most famous of all of his stories is the “cherry tree” incident. Weems’ version of the alleged historic anecdote follows:
When George was about 6 years old, he was made the wealthy owner of a hatchet, of which, like most little boys, he was immoderately fond; and was constantly going about chopping every thing which came in his way. One day, in the garden, where he often amused himself by hacking his mother’s pea-sticks, he unluckily tried the edge of his hatchet on the body of a beautiful young English cherry tree, which he barked so terribly, that I don’t believe the tree ever got the better of it. The next morning, the old gentleman, finding out what had befallen his tree, which, by the by, was a great favourite, came into the house; and with much warmth asked for the mischievous author, declaring at the same time, that he would not have taken 5 guineas for his tree. Nobody would tell him anything about it. Presently George and his hatchet made their appearance. “George,” said his father, “do you know who killed that beautiful little cherry tree yonder in the garden?”
This was a tough question; and George staggered under it for a moment; but quickly recovered himself; and looking at his father, with the sweet face of youth brightened with the inexpressible charm of all-conquering truth, he bravely cried out, “I can’t tell a lie, Pa; you know I can’t tell a lie. I did cut it with my hatchet.” “Run to my arms, you dearest boy,” cried his father in transports, “run to my arms; glad am I, George, that you killed my tree, for you have paid me for it a thousand fold. Such an act of heroism in my son is worth more than a thousand trees, though blossomed with silver and their fruits of purest gold.”3
Because of these sorts of unverifiable stories, as well as Parson Weems’ interest in presenting Washington as a model for virtue, he is believed—at least in the minds of most scholars—to have exaggerated elements of Washington’s life and to have added unhistorical details whenever it seemed appropriate to him to make his point. Thus, Weems is viewed with great suspicion by serious historians. There is good reason for this suspicion.
With all “honesty,” Weems does not score high marks as a careful historian, since he made many factual errors. In the first two chapters alone, he makes several misstatements: the maiden name of the first wife of George’s father, Augustine, was not Dandridge, but Butler; the age of Augustine at his marriage was not “at least 40,” but only thirty-six; the destination of the sea trip by George and Lawrence (his older stepbrother) was not Bermuda, but Barbados. Lawrence did not survive his struggle with tuberculosis long enough to see George’s successful military exploits at Fort Necessity in 1752, for he died in 1751; rather, his other stepbrother, Augustine Jr., lived to see it, since he did not die until 1762. Moreover, Weems created the wonderful dialogues of George and his family apparently from his own imagination, since there were no historical records kept of these early family dialogues.
Yet, we should also consider the assessment of Weems by Marcus Cunliffe, the historian who reissued Weems’ work on behalf of the Harvard Press in 1962. Cunliffe notes, “He gets his facts wrong, but not entirely wrong.”4 Weems also does something that creates the possibility that he was generally accurate. Namely, he quotes individuals by name, some of whom were still alive at the time of his writing. Thus we find John Fitzhugh, Esq. of Stafford, “who was, all his life, a neighbour and intimate of the Washington family.”5 There are also “Col. Lewis Willis, his play-mate and kinsman,” and “Mr. Harry Fitzhugh of Chotank.”6 These people actually existed. Col. Lewis (1734-1813, a cousin of George Washington) was still alive at the time of this book. John Fitzhugh of “Marmion in Stafford” appears in George’s diary.7 If Harry is a nickname for Henry, there also is a Henry Fitzhugh that appears in George’s diary.8 We are not aware of any of these men uttering any protest about what Weems had to say.
Weems explains that the anecdote he was about to present was “related to me twenty years ago by an aged lady, who was a distant relative, and when a girl spent much of her time in the family.”9 Since this ninth edition of Weems’ life of Washington was published in 1809, and it is the first version that offered the Washington childhood anecdotes, we would understand Weems to be relating stories he had heard around 1788, or just about when Washington was heading to be the first American president under the Constitution. This was a prime time for the appearance of the question, “Do you remember when?” which so often occurs when a local boy becomes famous.
Many of his claims could be checked by those in the region of Virginia, where Washington’s family and friends lived—the very ones to whom Weems sought to sell his books. Thus, it is plausible to assume that his claims based on such local, oral histories had some reliability, simply because of contemporaneous verifiability. Add to this the cover endorsement by Lighthorse Harry Lee (1756-1818), Major General in the U. S. Army as well as associate, neighbor, and friend of Washington. He was also the father of Robert E. Lee. Here is what he said about Weems’ book:
The author has treated this great subject with admirable success in a new way. He turns all the actions of Washington to the encouragement of virtue, by a careful application of numerous exemplifications drawn from the conduct of the founder of our republic from his earliest life. No biographer deserves more applause than he whose chief purpose is to entice the young mind to the affectionate love of virtue, by personifying it in the character most dear to these states.10
The point is that Lee understood that Weems’ biography was intended to be a call to virtue. It is Lee who says that these anecdotes were “drawn. . .from his earliest life.” Would such an illustrious Virginian and closely related friend of Washington fall for entirely unhistorical anecdotes of his hero, whom he himself knew and immortalized with the timeless words, “First in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen”?
But these modest arguments for Weems’ reliability cannot withstand the subsequent scathing critique of scholars. Writing about the turn of the twentieth century, Henry Cabot Lodge wrote a withering criticism, which set the tone for the standard wholesale scholarly dismissal of virtually everything that Weems ever wrote about Washington:
Many are the myths, and probably few the facts that have come down to us in regard to Washington’s boyhood. For the former we are indebted to the illustrious Weems, and to that personage a few more words must be devoted. Weems has been held up to the present age in various ways, unusually, it must be confessed, of an unflattering nature, and “mendacious” [untruthful] is the adjective most commonly applied to him....Let us therefore consign the Weems stories and their offspring to the limbo of historical rubbish, and try to learn what the plain facts tell us of the boy Washington.11
So, as we attempt to look at the Reverend Mason Weems and to evaluate if there is anything of historical value in his bestselling story of Washington, we must begin by looking at the hard data. What exactly do we know about this person who wrote of George Washington?
Mason Locke Weems (1759–1825) was born in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, spent part of his youth in England, where in 1784 he was ordained a priest of the Anglican Church, returning to Maryland to be rector (1784–89) of All Hallows Parish at South River in Anne Arundel County. Weems supported his wife and their ten children by traveling the east coast promoting and selling popular books, preaching in various sanctuaries (including Pohick Church), and writing moral essays and biographies of American heroes, including his book on Washington.12
Thus, we know that he was an itinerant bookseller and preacher in the Anglican Episcopalian tradition and that he had the opportunity to travel through the Mount Vernon region where Washington lived, about fifteen miles south of Washington, D.C. As he traveled to the different churches to fill vacant pulpits, he would preach and share his ministry of books. The book salesman in that day was called a “colporteur,” and his efforts were a well understood way of advancing the Christian faith in rural areas during the colonial era and long after.
His claim made on the title page of his bestseller, namely, that he was “Rector of Mount Vernon Parish,” has led many to scoff and to declare his utter historical unreliability, since there never was a Mount Vernon Parish in Virginia. However, as we saw in the chapter on George Washington the vestryman, Mount Vernon actually fell between two parishes. So while Weems’ title was inaccurate technically, it was not inaccurate ecclesiastically. Mount Vernon had been the central concern in the division of the old Truro parish into the new parishes of Truro and Fairfax. Therefore, while it is true that there was no literal Mount Vernon Parish, there are records that show that Reverend Weems was an Episcopalian minister who preached in the Pohick church where Washington worshiped. Washington biographer Phillip Slaughter writes,
Towards the close of the century, some say in 1798, the eccentric Mason L. Weems appears upon the scene. There is no proof of his precise relations to the Parish. In his popular Life of Washington he calls himself “Late Rector of Mount Vernon Parish,” as if he did not know its name. It is certain however that he was officiating there about the beginning of this century. Mr. Davis, a teacher in that section, published a work dedicated to Jefferson, and entitled, Four and a Half Years in America. In it he says: “About eight miles from Occoquan Mills is a place of worship called Poheek [sic] Church. Thither I rode on Sunday and joined the congregation of Parson Weems, a Minister of the Episcopal persuasion, who was cheerful in his mein that he might win men to religion.... the discourse of Parson Weems calmed every perturbation, for he preached the great doctrines of Salvation as one who had experienced their power.13
Apparently, Weems was an evangelical and eccentric preacher who had the ability to make people laugh. Bishop Meade mentions that whenever Parson Weems preached, he unleashed “the risible qualities” in people’s souls.14
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WASHINGTON AND WEEMS
The general misunderstanding of the relationship between Weems and Washington is reflected by the following comment excerpted from the 1975 People’s Almanac, “Footnote People in U.S. History,” “Although Weems boasted that he had preached for Washington at Mount Vernon, in truth they had never met.”15
Not so. In spite of such scholarly assaults on Weems’ integrity, not just on his reliability as a historian, we know that Weems had direct encounters with George Washington himself. It is clear that Washington and Weems had met, and that this likely occurred in the years between the War’s conclusion in 1783 and before his election to the presidency in 1789. The source for this fact is a 1792 letter from Weems to Washington. Weems explains to Washington that he had been “introduced to your Excellency by Doctor [ James] Craik [ Jr.] . . . some Years ago at M. Vernon.”16
The encounter between them is also substantiated by Washington’s diary entry for Saturday, March 3, 1787, which is most likely the encounter mentioned in his letter:
The Revd. Mr. Weems, and yg. Doctr. Craik who came here yesterday in the afternoon left this about Noon for Port Tobo.17
The younger Dr. James Craik that Washington mentions was the son of Washington’s closest friend, Dr. James Craik, who served as surgeon general in the Revolutionary War, and had also been with him in the French and Indian War. Dr. Craik was also with George Washington when he died. Thus, Washington’s diary tells us that he entertained the two men and that Weems and Craik spent the night. But why did Reverend Mason Weems, together with the younger Dr. Craik, visit Washington at Mount Vernon in the first place?
The answer is that Weems was married to the cousin of James Craik’s wife. The editors of Washington’s diaries, Donald Jackson and Dorothy Twohig “In 1785 Weems married Frances Ewell (1775-1843), a cousin of Dr. Craik and daughter of Col. Jesse Ewell of Bel Air, Prince William County, where the Weems family later made their home.”18 Thus, the Weems’ family connection to one of Washington’s closest friends brought him into contact with Washington himself. That explains why the younger James Craik as well as Weems visited Washington’s house together.
So we know that Weems and Washington knew each other; were connected not only by region, but also by friends; and that Weems even had spent the night with Washington at Mount Vernon.
But we also find that Weems had further correspondence with Washington. Weems actually had the opportunity to sell one of the books he had published to Washington. In one of Washington’s cash accounts we discover that he purchased a book called Blair’s Sermons.19 In 1795, Weems wrote to Washington:
Highly honored Sir: Herewith I send your Copy of the American Edition of Blair’s Sermons, which you were so good as to patronize; and for which you paid. I have taken upon me to circulate moral and religious books among the people, with which I know that your Excellency as the Father of the People, is not displeased. Bishop Maddison, Mr. John Dickinson and Doctor Wharton have set me on a good work, i. e. to reprint, if possible a large and cheap American edition of the good old Bishop Wilson’s works. I am not ignorant of the services which your Excellency has had the happiness to render to my county, and hope you will not be angry with me for saying that I have gratitude enough earnestly to wish to make your Excellency a present of an Elegant Copy of the above very valuable Work. Your Excellency’s name will greatly help our undertaking, and so render a real blessing to our country as well as a lasting obligation on your Excellency’s Well Wishing, Mason L. Weems.20
While very little is known about the Bishop Thomas Wilson referred to in Weems’ letter, so far as we can tell, Washington did not write back to Weems concerning Bishop Wilson’s works, but we do know from his library that he possessed them and that they came to him in 1794 as part of the estate of Bishop Wilson’s family. This occurred a year before Weems’ letter. Also accompanying the Bishop’s works was the three-volume study Bible that had been written by Bishop Wilson as well.21 Clearly, scholarly clergy on both sides of the Atlantic understood that Washington had a true interest in the Bible.
The topics of the book indicate that the book purchased by Washington from Weems was thoroughly orthodox in perspective. It begins with “View of the Internal Evidence of the Christian Religion,” by Soame Jenyns of the British Parliament.22 Next, Weems’ book presents twenty-one of Blair’s sermons, with titles such as “On the Union of Piety and Morality,” “On the Death of Christ,” “On the Government of the Heart,” and “On the Compassion of Christ.”
Thus, the selling and buying of religious books brought Washington and Weems in contact. Historians today so often dismiss Weems as an eccentric, clerical book peddler and a deficient historian. We have yet to find one who acknowledges the evidence that George Washington himself was an occasional beneficiary or even customer of Christian book-seller Parson Weems! There are at least three other letters in the Washington correspondence that further illuminate the relationship between Weems and Washington. On March 26, 1799, Weems needed a character reference on a potential customer. The parson wrote on behalf of a wealthy friend, concerning a man (James Welch) to whom Washington had sold a piece of property. Weems wanted to know whether Welch had fulfilled his financial obligations, since Welch was now attempting to make a large order on credit from his friend.23
Washington’s answer was swift, being dated March 31, 1799. He explained his real estate contract with James Welch, concluding with words that likely caused a denial of the extension of credit: “PS. It may not be amiss to add that the first years Rent (due in Jan. last) is not yet paid.”24
Thus, the need to verify a friend’s customer’s credit brought them together. Six months later, on August 29, 1799, Washington wrote another letter to Reverend Weems. It was in response to Reverend Weems’ printed sermon that called for an end to the divisive, political spirit that had appeared in the political process surrounding the presidential election.
Reverend 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.25
Washington’s view was that even though Weems’ “philanthropist” (charitable) proposal was really wishful thinking, he could also wish that “the doctrine it endeavors to inculcate, were more prevalent.”
Thus, not only Virginian family and friends, the purchasing of religious materials, and the assisting of business relationships brought Washington and Weems together, but so did a common concern for the divisive, political spirit that was beginning to take root in the young republic’s elections. On top of all of this, there apparently was an even deeper reason that Washington and Weems had a common bond.
WASHINGTON’S PRAISE FOR THE IMMORTAL MENTOR
To attempt to understand the bond of the Washington and Weems relationship, we might ask, what prompted Weems to send The Philanthropist to Washington in the first place? The answer appears to be the response the retired president had sent just weeks before to Weems on July 3, 1799, concerning a publication he had sent. This book was a compilation of writings entitled The Immortal Mentor. The full title is sometimes given as The Immortal Mentor; or Man’s Unerring Guide to a Healthy, Wealthy and Happy Life.26
The third letter, then, which highlights the relationship between Washington and Weems’ concerns Washington’s views of The Immortal Mentor. Washington’s letter to Weems is most important for our purposes. Washington, expressing his thanks for the gift of The Immortal Mentor, says to “The Reverend Mr. Weems”:
For your kind compliment—“The Immortal Mentor,” I beg you to accept my best thanks. I have perused it with singular satisfaction; and hesitate not to say that it is in my opinion at least, an invaluable compilation. I cannot but hope that a book whose contents do such credit to its title, will meet a very generous patronage.
Should that patronage equal my wishes, you will have no reason to regret that you ever printed the Immortal mentor.
With respect I am Reverend Sir,
Your most obedient
Humble Servant,
George Washington.27 (emphasis in the original.)
In all of the many letters of Washington, there is no commendation that compares with Washington’s affirmation of this work. He not only declares that he “perused” the book, but he showers upon it his “best thanks,” his “singular satisfaction,” his declaration of his “opinion” that it is “an invaluable compilation” and a wish for a “generous patronage.” In other words, Washington hoped that the book would sell well. Given that he regularly, for consistency’s sake, turned down dedications and endorsements from many authors for things that he truly favored, the mere fact that he made such a statement is remarkable.28
It should be noted that while in today’s conversation, the verb “to peruse” tends to mean to give something a brief look-through, in Washington’s day, the word had a very different, in fact, its accurate meaning. Even a current Webster’s Dictionary defines to “peruse” as “to examine with great care; to read intensively.” Thus, when Washington claims to have perused Weems’ book, he did so with great care, and most likely read it cover to cover.29
Washington’s lavish endorsement of Weems’ compilation requires us to take a close look at this book “whose contents do such credit to its title.”
THE MESSAGE OF THE IMMORTAL MENTOR: HOW TO BE HEALTHY, WEALTHY, AND WISE
The Immortal Mentor is a compilation of three different authors. The first section is by an Italian author named Luigi Cornaro, entitled, “Man’s Unerring Guide to a Long and Healthy Life.” Cornaro explains how, by replacing luxury and gluttony with frugality and temperance, even an ill person, as he himself once was, can attain a long and healthy life.
The second section is by Dr. Benjamin Franklin. His two short pieces are “The Way to Wealth” and “Advice to a Young Tradesman.” These are intended to instruct a young person on how hard work and thrift will result in the accumulation of wealth.
And the third and final section is by Dr. Thomas Scott.30 His is the longest selection, comprising more than half the book, and is entitled, “A Sure Guide To Happiness.” It is composed of two sections. The first is intended to teach love for God, and the second is to teach “social love,” or love for one’s neighbor. These two items, often considered the first and second great commandments in the Judeo-Christian tradition, are in Dr. Scott’s mind, the sure guide to happiness.
TEMPERANCE AND HEALTH
The Immortal Mentor is designed to explain how a person could be healthy, wealthy, and happy. What makes this book significant for our discussion of Washington’s religion is that it demonstrates that Washington truly enjoyed and appreciated a Christian perspective on these foundational questions of health, wealth, and happiness, for The Immortal Mentor underscores Christian principles. The first piece by Cornaro explains how temperance helps one to have a long life on earth and to seek forgiveness of sins and eternal life in heaven.
Cornaro writes,
...I must confess, it was not without great reluctance that I abandoned my luxurious way of living. I began with praying to God, that he would grant me the gift of Temperance, well knowing that he always hears our prayers with delight.
...that when he shakes hands with his vices, he is no longer a slave to the devil, and finds himself in a better condition of providing for the salvation of his soul: that God, whose goodness is infinite, has ordained that the man who comes to the end of his race, should end his life without any distemper, and so pass by a sweet and easy death, to a life of immortality and glory, which I expect. I hope (said I to him) to die singing the praises of my Creator. The sad reflection, that we must one day cease to live, is no disturbance to me, though I easily perceive, that at my age, that day cannot be far off; nor am I afraid of the terrors of hell, because, blessed be God, I have long ago shaken hands with my sins, and put my trust in the mercy and merits of the blood of Jesus Christ.31
ATTAINING WEALTH
The second section by Benjamin Franklin shows that when one works hard and exercises thrift and industry, he is able to accumulate wealth. In this regard he offers many practical hints from Franklin’s well-known Poor Richard’s Almanack such as:
Away, then with your expensive follies, and you will not then have so much cause to complain of hard times, heavy taxes, and chargeable families; for
Women and wine, game and deceit,
Makes the wealth small, and the want great.
And farther, “What maintains one vice, would bring up two children.” . . . Beware of little expences; “A small leak will sink a great ship,” as Poor Richard says.”32
The practical advice given to the “Young Tradesman” also helps make a man wealthy:
Remember that time is money....Remember that credit is money. If a man lets his money lie in my hands after it is due, he gives me the interest, or so much as I can make of it during that time....Remember that money is of a prolific generating nature. Money can beget money, and its offspring can beget more, and so on...33
Finally, in Franklin’s mind, this accumulated wealth has a spiritual context. Under the Providence of God, wealth enables the diligent worker to become a useful neighbor to others.
This doctrine, my friends, is reason and wisdom: but, after all, do not depend too much upon your own industry and frugality, and prudence, though excellent things; for they may all be blasted, without the blessing of Heaven; and therefore, ask that blessing humbly, and be not uncharitable to those that at present seem to want it, but comfort and help them. Remember, Job suffered, and was afterwards prosperous....34
In short, the way to wealth, if you desire it, is as plain as the way to market. It depends chiefly on two words, industry and frugality; that is, waste neither time nor money, but make the best use of both. Without industry and frugality nothing will do, and with them every thing. He that gets all he can honestly, and saves all he gets, (necessary expenses excepted) will certainly become rich; if that Being who governs the world, to whom all should look for a blessing on their honest endeavors, doth not, in his wise providence, otherwise determine.35
TRUE WISDOM
The third section of the Immortal Mentor explains how a person can be truly happy. Dr. Thomas Scott an Anglican clergyman and biblical commentator begins this selection from his vast writings with an affirmation of revelation:
If there be any truth fully ascertained by reason and revelation, it is this, That “Man is not but to be happy.” ...Wherein consists the happiness of man?36
Dr. Scott teaches that happiness cannot be found in the body. To make this point he offers a graphic depiction of an old man dying:
Nature now sinks apace; his heart labours; his breast heaves; his breathing becomes short and quick; his eyes are hollow and sunk; his voice grows hoarse; he rattles in the throat; his limbs wax cold; his teeth turn black; he foams at the mouth; a feeble convulsion shakes his frame and, with a deep groan, his unwilling spirit takes her leave. Immediately putrefaction and worms begin their loathsome office; and in a little time, this pampered, idolized flesh, returns to the dust of which it was formed.37
From this painful image of death, Dr. Scott draws this spiritual lesson:
Who can contemplate this picture, and not bewail with tears of blood, the madness of those who expect their only happiness from such a vile body! O how infinitely superior to these miserable delusions is the Heaven descended philosophy of Jesus Christ! In that divine religion, the body, instead of being exalted as the seat of our happiness, is depreciated as the principal cause of our misery, being, as the poet expresses it, not only a nest of pain and bag of corruption, but the most fruitful source of our sins and sorrows. Christ seldom mentions the body....38
Just as happiness cannot be found in the body, nor can it be found in the wealth of this world. Dr. Scott writes,
But the vanity of seeking happiness from riches, honors and pleasures, is yet more convincingly felt when death comes to put a final close to this mortal scene. Ah! my friends, this is the awful hour that strips off the tinsel coverings of folly, stamps vanity on all beneath the sun, and shews that “too low they build, who build beneath the stars.”
In that day of terror and despair, what can a vain world offer its poor deluded followers... The remembrance of a life misspent in vain or in guilty pleasures, will fill the soul with pangs of remorse, with agonies of horror, of which none but the wretched sufferers can form any idea. . . . “I have neglected God, and sold my birth-right to heaven! Me, miserable! Whether am I going? My golden sands are all run out! The sun of my life is about to set, and, utterly unprepared, I am going to appear before God.” . . . then, when earth, and only earth, hath been the pursuit, what wretchedness to be torn from all that was counted happiness; to leave this dear world behind them forever, to go—Ah! Whither? Not to treasures laid up for them in heaven; not to the place where they have made themselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; but where that rich man went who lift up his eyes in torment, because, though rich in this world, he was not rich towards God.39
Instead of finding happiness in the pleasures of the body or in the pursuit of wealth, Dr. Scott argues that happiness can only be found in love, a love that is aimed toward God and toward one’s neighbor.
“Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth,” says the divine Teacher. ... “but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven; for where the treasure is, there will the heart be also.”—What treasures? Why love,—Love to God and to our neighbour.40
The man who loves God, says Dr. Scott, is the only truly wise man. He is the one following the words of “the divine Teacher”—Jesus Christ.
He who loves God is the alone wise, dignified and happy man. For he loves the only good that is worthy the affections of an immortal mind. He loves a friend who alone possesses almighty power to protect him, unerring wisdom to counsel him, and infinite love to bless him. He loves an immortal friend who can never die and forsake him, and an unchangeable friend who will never requite his love with neglect.41
And finally, Dr. Scott’s teaching of love is much closer to the religion of Paul than that of Mr. Thomas Paine,
But love not only thus marshals an army with banners around us for our safety; it also pours a sweet sunshine of peace and harmony over our days. St. Paul, who was a much safer guide in matters of religion, than Mr. Paine, advises us to walk in love with our neighbours, if we would lead a quiet and peaceable life. For as men naturally perceive a fragrance in the rose, and a sweetness in the honey-comb; so naturally do they discern a heavenly charm and beauty in love.42
How does the explicitly Christian content of the Reverend Weems’ Immortal Mentor impact the question of Washington’s views of Christianity?
We believe that it directly impacts the question of Washington’s Christianity. Consider again Washington’s assessment of Weems’ work. Washington wrote to Reverend Weems declaring that he had “perused” (read carefully) his book with “singular satisfaction.” In short, he found the book to have been deeply satisfying to his soul. The significance of this statement is that only on one other occasion did Washington ever write such a declaration of approval to a published work. This second instance of Washington’s “singular satisfaction” was expressed to the Reverend John Lathrop in regard to the Humane Society’s dramatic and successful efforts to save lives from near death situations. He wrote to Reverend Lathrop,
Reverend and respected Sir: Your very acceptable favour of the 16th. of May, covering a recent publication of the proceedings of the Humane Society [of Massachusetts] have, within a few days past, been put into my hands. I observe, with singular satisfaction, the cases in which your benevolent Institution has been instrumental in recalling some of our Fellow creatures (as it were) from beyond the gates of Eternity, and has given occasion for the hearts of parents and friends to leap for joy. The provision made for the preservation of ship-wrecked Mariners is also highly estimable in the view of every philanthropic mind and greatly consolatory to that suffering part of the Community. These things will draw upon you the blessings of those, who were nigh to perish. These works of charity and good-will towards men reflect, in my estimation, great lustre upon the authors and presage an æra of still father improvements. How pitiful, in the eye of reason and religion, is that false ambition which desolates the world with fire and sword for the purposes of conquest and fame; when compared to the milder virtues of making our neighbours and our fellow men as happy as their frail conditions and perishable natures will permit them to be!43
Thus, Washington greeted Weems’ book with the same “singular satisfaction” that he afforded to the Reverend Dr. Lathrop’s gift of the report of the Humane Society. The point to be seen here is that the Christian ethic of saving mankind’s physical life and the Christian message of saving mankind’s spiritual life both brought “singular satisfaction” to Washington’s soul.
Washington further declared that he hoped that Weems’ book would receive an “extensive patronage,” or a broad audience. In his opinion, it was an extremely well-named book, given the selections that were offered. Thus, Washington could delight in and encourage Christian ideas, even though these Christian concepts were circulated by the much maligned Parson Weems.
CONCLUSION: THE REVENGE OF PARSON WEEMS
Whether one agrees or not with Weems’ historical writings, it is clear that Washington embraced Weems’ theological perspective and had had substantial historical encounters with Weems and his Christian beliefs. This may come as a surprise to many, since no historian who has written on Washington in the last century has even commented on it, let alone considered this evidence of Washington’s advocacy of the theology of the consistently ridiculed Reverend Mason Weems. Ironically, Washington here stands as an advocate of Reverend Weems and his theology.
What is the conclusion here? Only a Christian could have taken the views expressed by Washington to a preacher publishing a book with such explicit Christian themes. Washington could not have done so as a Deist.
Scholars know they can’t rely on Parson Weems’ biography of Washington. Nevertheless, they must trust Washington’s own words concerning the Christian book compiled by Parson Weems. With “singular satisfaction,” or distinct pleasure, we declare that the only legitimate conclusion that can be drawn from this evidence is that Washington was an advocate of and a believer in the Christian faith.