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.
