METODOLOGÍA DE LA INVESTIGACIÓN 3.1 ÁMBITO DE ESTUDIO
TABLA Nª 24: FACTOR INSTITUCIONAL: LA INSTITUCION COMO FACTOR QUE FAVORECE LA TOMA DE PAPANICOLAOU EN
Throughout we have seen a theological matrix in operation through which
Edwards made sense of church history. His main Scripture text and doctrine established a vision of enduring opposition between evil and righteousness, and his overall structure revolved around points of divine justice and dramatic advances in Christ‘s kingdom. The historical material fit within these parameters, with Edwards continually emphasizing themes of persecution and conflict between the ‗true‘ church and diabolical forces,
growing corruption, and the survival and periodic flourishing of the church through divine
108 Ibid., 499.
111
assistance. He narrated history in relation to God‘s providence—both his general government of the world and its affairs and his direct intervention in particular, remarkable ways. Instances of the latter also gave a central role to the Holy Spirit in bringing individual conversion and widespread religious revival. Edwards‘ sermon series focused on redemption as the chief work of God which he carried on through each season of history. The key theme of Edwards‘ text—that ‗righteousness‘ would ultimately prevail while the wicked perished—contributed a sense of development under God‘s design. This was amplified by Edwards‘ eschatology, which looked for a future millennium which would outshine previous times of the church‘s flourishing.
In many respects Edwards‘ interpretation corresponds with those of the writers treated in Chapter Two. Edwards‘ theological framework was much more prevalent; but his evangelical counterparts nonetheless approached history with theological
presuppositions. Moreover, many of these presuppositions were shared: God‘s providence, the Holy Spirit‘s continued activity, the church as a spiritual entity often marked by suffering, and an eschatology anticipating a (possibly imminent) millennium. Non-theological aspects corresponded as well. Edwards like other early evangelicals displayed keen attention to the apostolic church and the Reformation as benchmarks of Christian vitality. Like his friend and associate Prince, Edwards had high praise for Constantine and benefits accrued to the church during his reign. He also gravitated towards the same line of protest which others had highlighted: Waldenses, Wycliffe, and the Bohemians Hus and Jerome. Correspondingly he emphasized growing corruption emanating from Rome which persisted within Catholicism. He also extended the pattern of corruption and renewal beyond the Reformation, finding cause for both praise and blame in European and New World Protestantism.
112
Edwards‘ more explicitly theological approach was only a difference of degree. The same is true in relation to use of biblical prophecy, examples of which appeared, although tangentially, in Gillies‘ history. They clearly diverged on the effect of Constantine‘s reign. Their opposite stances may have stemmed from ecclesiastical or political contrasts: Gillies, part of a reform movement within an established church, may have been predisposed to scorn powerful patronage and political meddling in church affairs; Edwards, on the edge of British civilization, may have longed for a more settled Christianity supported by political clout. Regardless, their interpretations soon merged again as Edwards found rapid corruption on the heels of Constantine‘s reign. Another difference between the two, again in degree, was the overall impression given of the ‗true‘ church through the centuries. While they gravitated toward similar exemplars, Gillies‘ work allowed the possibility of vital Christianity appearing within the Catholic fold whereas Edwards‘ construal of Catholicism was unremittingly hostile. Again, cultural situation offers at least a partial explanation. Although Scotland experienced pangs of Catholic threat such as the Jacobite rebellion in 1745, Edwards‘ frontier existence was more precarious: real dangers of Catholic domination existed in the form of French and Spanish settlement and expansion in the New World.110
In important ways, Edwards‘ interpretation stood in profound continuity with traditional Protestant historiography. His use of Scripture as a foundation for his understanding, in its historical content, its prophecy, and its typological significance, remained firmly in line with Puritan forebears. This is true also in regard to his use of theology as a framework as well as his specific theological content, such as his emphasis on God‘s providence and his construal of the ‗true‘ church as a spiritually-defined entity
110 Marsden observes New England‘s vulnerable position with (real or perceived) threats from France and
Spain in the late 1730s, set within a discussion of Edwards‘ interest in God‘s use of ―political agents‖ (p. 196) in service of his work of redemption. Marsden, Edwards, 197.
113
which typically existed as a persecuted faithful remnant. Edwards‘ traditional dependence on Scripture and theology in his approach to history is highlighted by Wilson.111 Moreover,
what Edwards articulated on particulars such as Pentecost, early persecutions, Constantine, the papacy, and the Reformation compare closely with what Foxe propounded a century and a half prior.
Yet in other respects Edwards‘ interpretation revised earlier historiography. Engle describes him as ―a Reformation historiographer who had the advantage of writing at the very end of the period of post-Reformation developments‖ and one who thus served as a
―bridge‖ between post-Reformation and modern eras.112 Zakai observes the difference
between Edwards‘ view of history and those of Foxe and New England Puritans who each were preoccupied with the struggles of their respective ‗national‘ church institutions, chiefly against ‗popery‘.113 In Edwards‘ mind, the Holy Spirit could not be thus confined;
God‘s work of redemption was something enacted around the globe and encompassing all of human history. Edwards in the 1730s was somewhat limited in his access to the raw data of this universal history, but this circumstance did not restrain his vision.
As with Gillies‘ and other early evangelicals‘ interpretations, it is difficult to assess the relationship between Edwards‘ view of history and Enlightenment understandings, since in the English world what we consider to be the classics of Enlightenment
historiography began to emerge only around the 1750s—for example Bolingbroke‘s Letters
on the Study and Use of History in 1752 and Hume‘s dissertation on the ―Natural History of Religion‖ in 1757 and History of England in 1759.114 Edwards (and Gillies after him) made
111 Wilson, "Edwards as Historian": 8–15. 112 Engle, "Edwards as Historiographer", vii.
113 Zakai, Edwards's Philosophy of History, 19–20, 162, 163, 181, 254–55.
114 This point uncovers a problem with Zakai‘s recent analysis of Edwards‘ philosophy of history (relying
chiefly on the History). Zakai construes Edwards as developing his historical framework directly in reaction against Enlightenment historiography, but either he asserts this without any evidence or he uses examples of Enlightenment histories which postdate Edwards‘ sermon series, such as the writings of Hume, Bolingbroke and Gibbon. For examples, see Ibid., 4, 10, 11, 39, 40, 224–25, 226–27. While it remains likely that Edwards
114
no direct engagement with contemporary ‗enlightened‘ history-writers.
But one can nonetheless perceive a reaction to ideas which we consider features of the Enlightenment. Edwards clearly viewed deistic thought as leading directly to atheism and moral bankruptcy, and his strongly providentialist reading of history was a sharp critique of a view of human affairs which made divine influence benign, remote, or absent entirely. Zakai views Edwards‘ historical work as a critique of the ―disenchantment of the world‖ brought about through the perception of God‘s role as remote and through the elevation of private experience, subject to reason and scientific observation, over revelation as authoritative in religion as well as other spheres. Along these lines Zakai perceives in Edwards‘ thought an attempt to reassert divine rather than human agency as the driving force in human history.115
In other aspects Edwards‘ historical interpretation compares favourably with Enlightenment features. The most obvious is his view of general progress, with internal oscillations, which he perceived in God‘s work of redemption over time. A correlation
between Edwards‘ and Enlightenment notions of progress is asserted by Zakai.116 That he
saw the Revival as either a beginning or a foretaste of vast improvement in society (in spiritual terms, and culminating in the millennium) mimicked the optimism with which Enlightenment thinkers viewed their own day. Edwards even shared directly with the philosophes an appreciation for classical learning revived in the Renaissance and the eighteenth century. Akin to the Enlightenment attempt to extract universal principles in regard to human society through scientific observation, Edwards turned to another
source—biblical revelation—to develop an account of God‘s universal plan of redemption
reacted against ‗humanist‘ or deist ideas which he encountered in his wide reading, Zakai‘s construction of an active disagreement with leading Enlightenment historians is anachronistic. Active evangelical disagreement would come later, especially in the writings of Wesley, Milner and Haweis (see Chaps. Four through Six).
115 Ibid., xiii–ix, 133–38, 140. 116 Ibid., 158, 201–202, 233–34.
115
and then used his own powers of observation for supporting evidence.117 Of course, he
ventured beyond analysis of human history into a truly ‗universal‘, or cosmic, perspective. However distasteful this ‗mythic‘ quality was to Enlightenment intelligentsia preoccupied with rationality (as evidenced by the critical review cited at the outset of this chapter), Edwards‘ assurance that he could discern God‘s design for the created order matches, or perhaps outdistances, Enlightenment thinkers‘ self-assured attitude. Stephen Holmes identifies Edwards‘ ―confidence, not just in the rationality of the world, but in his ability to
uncover that rationality‖ as a dimension evident in the History which ―marks Edwards
most clearly as an Enlightenment thinker.‖118
As with other early evangelical interpretations of church history, Edwards‘ History of the Work of Redemption promoted ‗revival‘ as a major theme. With Edwards this appeared not only as a means of narrating the history of Christianity, with revivals serving as the high points and dividing lines, but also as an interpretive theme containing much of the theology which Edwards highlighted. Instances of revival encapsulated Edwards‘ emphasis on God‘s providence, the Holy Spirit‘s activity, Christ‘s preservation of his church through dramatic rescues at the point of despair, and anticipation of the millennium. Moreover, they poignantly displayed, in his mind, the advancement of God‘s work of redemption which he had been carrying forward since the very beginning. He established early on and supported throughout the notion that revivals were the chief instrument used by God to accomplish the building of his kingdom.
Joseph Conforti asserts that Edwards‘ History ―drew on scripture evidence and Christian history to place revivals at the center of the providential plan for human redemption.‖ What Conforti says of the work‘s effect in the nineteenth century could be
117 See esp. Stout, "Edwards‘ Tri-World Vision," on this point. 118 Holmes, Theology of Jonathan Edwards, 113.
116
applied for the last quarter of the eighteenth, that the History ―served to ‗universalize‘‖ revival by situating it within ―a cosmic scheme of redemption.‖119 Zakai similarly highlights
Edwards‘ effort to interpret chronos, human history, through occasions of kairos, the breaking in of God‘s Spirit through special seasons of merciful revival or awakening. Revival became a tangible means by which to assert God‘s direct involvement in human affairs.120 In this manner Edwards rendered profound significance to the experience of his
own congregants and heightened their expectation of greater things.121 When the History
finally was published in 1774, its theologically rich, revival-centred account offered a convincing framework for an evangelical readership already attuned by various other sources to see revival as a key concept in understanding the Christian past.
119 Joseph A. Conforti, Jonathan Edwards, Religious Tradition, and American Culture (Chapel Hill, NC & London:
University of North Carolina Press, 1995), 47. Conforti, interested in American reception of Edwards‘ ideas, sees the History as having little influence until the 1790s onward coinciding with what is termed the Second Great Awakening. But Conforti‘s analysis does not consider the influence of his publication in a transatlantic context or, for that matter, the dissemination of aspects of Edwards‘ interpretation in his works published within his lifetime.
120 Zakai, Edwards's Philosophy of History, 13–14, 153–54.
121 Both Zakai and Marsden view the History as Edwards‘ attempt to contextualize, and thus give greater
weight to, revival in Northampton. Ibid., 234–39, and Marsden, Edwards, 193–94. Along these lines, Yale editors Stein and Goen both claim that Edwards crafted the History in the hopes of instigating another revival in his congregation. Edwards, Apocalyptic Writings, 22, 24–25, and Edwards, Great Awakening, 47–48.
117
Chapter Four – The Progress of ‘Iniquity’ and ‘Godliness’: John Wesley’s Concise Ecclesiastical History and Historical Sermons1
John Wesley‘s keen interest in the Christian past can be seen early in his career as an itinerant preacher and organizer of Methodism. He represented church history in sweeping terms in a controversial sermon preached before St Mary‘s Church, Oxford on 24 August 1744, in which he lambasted Oxford‘s university establishment for their failure to demonstrate ‗Scriptural Christianity‘. Wesley began his homily with a depiction of the spiritual character of early Christianity. Then he recounted the remarkable spread of the gospel but also the concomitant taking of offence by people concerned with pleasure, reputation or external religiosity. In the midst of storms of persecution God empowered his people to speak boldly and live faithfully, so that ―the pillars of hell were shaken, and the kingdom of God spread more and more.‖ After this glimpse at the early church, Wesley emphasized how quickly the ―mystery of iniquity‖ had grown up alongside the ―mystery of godliness,‖ the devil occupying a place within the church and the faithful remnant, as prophesied in Rev. 12, escaping ―into the wilderness.‖ He then cast
subsequent church history as the story of conflict between forces of decay and renewal. ―Here we tread a beaten path,‖ he declared in deference to inherited Protestant
interpretations of the past, and continued: ―…the still increasing corruptions of the succeeding generations have been largely described from time to time, by those witnesses God raised up, to show that he had ‗built his church upon a rock, and the gates of hell should not‘ wholly ‗prevail against her‘.‖ After this dramatic and oppositional historical picture, Wesley turned to contemplation of ―greater things‖ to come when God, in
1 This chapter is a more extensive treatment of the subject of an earlier article; see Darren W. Schmidt, "The
Pattern of Revival: John Wesley's Vision of 'Iniquity' and 'Godliness' in Church History," in Revival and Resurgence in Christian History, ed. Kate Cooper and Jeremy Gregory, Studies in Church History, vol. 44 (Woodbridge, UK: published for the Ecclesiastical History Society by the Boydell Press, 2008), 142–53.
118
fulfilment of his promises, would cause vital Christianity to ―prevail over all, and cover the earth,‖ a Christianity of which he believed his audience to be ignorant.2
Wesley‘s evident historical interest as well as aspects of this early interpretation reappeared at various points throughout Wesley‘s publishing career. No systematic gleaning of Wesley‘s historical articulations from his vast corpus will be attempted here. But writings such as A Letter to the Reverend Dr. Conyers Middleton, Occasioned by his late Free Enquiry… (1749), in which Wesley turned to early Christianity to argue for the
perseverance of miracles beyond the apostolic age, and his Christian Library (1749–1755), a fifty-volume compendium of ―practical divinity‖ from patristic writings to Foxe and Clarke‘s martyrologies to the spiritual works of seventeenth-century Puritans, display an enduring historical attentiveness. Records of Wesley‘s reading demonstrate that history— ancient as well as more recent, ecclesiastical as well as national, political and military— composed a significant part of his literary intake.3
History and the theme of God‘s hand in human affairs were prominent in Wesley‘s writing in the last fifteen years of his life, after four decades and thousands of miles of itinerant ministry. In 1776 Wesley issued his first major historical work, a Concise History of England, from the Earliest Times, to the Death of George II, extracted from three English
histories by contemporary authors.4 His Preface to this work made clear his goal to
produce an English history which acknowledged God‘s sovereignty and involvement in directing the nation‘s course. Wesley stated of extant general histories that ―they seem
2 ―Scriptural Christianity,‖ in John Wesley, Works of John Wesley, vol. 1–4, Sermons, ed. Albert C. Outler
(Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1984–1987), 1:161–69, quotations at 168, 169. Note Wesley‘s reference to Matt. 16:18 but also his insertion of the word ‗wholly‘, effectively buttressing a more negative portrayal. For Outler‘s discussion of the historical context and importance of this sermon, see 1:109, 113–16.
3 Randy L. Maddox, "John Wesley's Reading: Evidence in the Kingswood School Archives", Methodist History
41, no. 2 (2003), and Maddox, "Wesley's Reading: Wesley's House, London".
4 John Wesley, A Concise History of England, from the Earliest Times, to the Death of George II, 4 vols. (London:
printed by Robert Hawes, 1776), 1:vi–vii. Sources were histories by Oliver Goldsmith (1771), Tobias George Smollett (1758) and Paul Rapin de Thoyras (1725).
119
calculated only for Atheists; for there is nothing about GOD in them.‖5 He admitted the
difficulty of perceiving ―among the multiplicity of visible causes … Him that is invisible, the One Great Cause, sitting on the circle of the heavens, and ruling all things in heaven and earth.‖ But his work, he believed, filled a void: there would be ―at least one History‖ of England which acknowledged God as King, ―one Christian History, of what is still called (tho‘ by a strong figure) a Christian Country.‖6 In July 1781, after having just finished
reading the second volume of William Robertson‘s History of America, Wesley recorded in
his journal his critical view that Robertson in this work and in his history of Charles V was ―a Christian Divine writing a history, with so very little of Christianity in it.‖ ―Nay,‖ Wesley continued, ―he seems studiously to avoid saying any thing which might imply that he believes the Bible.‖ Robertson‘s chief fault was ―totally excluding the Creator from governing the world‖ and describing events in terms stripped of divine reference.7 History
evidently turned Wesley‘s mind to consideration of God‘s active governance.
Our focus in this chapter is on Wesley‘s writings on church history from the 1780s.
In 1781 Wesley produced his most comprehensive work, the four-volume Concise
Ecclesiastical History, from the Birth of Christ, to the Beginning of the Present Century. This was primarily an abridgment of Mosheim‘s church history, with Wesley appending in the fourth volume his own ―Short History of the People Called Methodists.‖ Over the next few years Wesley expressed his historical vision within the more candid and popular format of sermons. Three in particular are analysed here as sweeping portrayals of church history which serve to amplify features of Wesley‘s interpretation gleaned more
assiduously from his editing of Mosheim.
Despite the wealth of literature on Wesley, relatively few scholars have examined