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.

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.