1
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
George Washington and family emerging from Easter services at Christ Church, Alexandria, in 1795.
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.
