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 5^th 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