 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Dave Armstrong Network Apologist

| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 2445 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 26th, 2008 05:32 pm |
|
This is the first installment of a condensed version of extensive research (with new material added presently) that I undertook in 1985, when I was an evangelical campus missionary. It's one of the last major "projects" from my evangelical days (prior to October 1990) that needed to be uploaded to my blog.
As there remains a lot of mythology on this topic: both from those who maintain the pretense that most of these men were all or mostly good evangelical "born-again Christians" to atheists and secularists who try to pass them off as mere cold deists, the topic is as timely and worthwhile as ever! As always, the truth is more interesting and unusual than the common myths that get bandied about on both the right and the left of the political and religious spectrum.
* * * * *
This study shall examine the views of four of the most influential men from the American colonial period and the birth of the country as an independent nation: George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson.
Washington expressed very little about the particulars of his faith; hence conclusions about him remain somewhat uncertain. Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson were not deists, strictly defined, as often claimed (or if they were, they were quite inconsistent deists). They all believed, for instance, that God intervened in human affairs (Providence), a tenet that deism, by definition, opposes.
The Founding Fathers (while not always orthodox by any stretch, even within a somewhat nebulous Protestant framework) nevertheless continued to hold to a broad Christian worldview. The determination of whether one is a deist largely turns on the question of Divine Providence and whether it is consistent with deist belief. Some deists think it is, but the majority position seems to be that it isn't. The Catholic Encyclopedia ("Deism") explains:
[D]eism not only distinguishes the world and God as effect and cause; it emphasizes the transcendence of the Deity at the sacrifice of His indwelling and His providence. He is apart from the creation which He brought into being, and unconcerned as to the details of its working. Having made Nature, He allows it to run its own course without interference on His part. In this point the doctrine of deism differs clearly from that of theism. Michael and Jana Novak concur:
Deism is not exactly a creed with clear tenets; it is more like a tendency of the mind; a movement like rationalism or romanticism; and, in the view of some historians of ideas, a half-way marker slowly moving from Jewish or Christian orthodoxy toward early modern science. The general drift of deism is that the originating and governing force of the universe is the god of modern rationalists (Newton, Spinoza, et al.), not at all like the Great God Jehovah of the Hebrew Bible. Deists prefer the god of reason to the God of revelation.
The latter has a special love and care for particular peoples and persons, unlike the deist god, who is impersonal and indifferent to the world he sets in motion. The God of revelation intervenes and interposes in historical events and personal lives, and hears and answers prayers; the god of reason does no such things.
Avery Cardinal Dulles, in an article on deism, classifies our subjects (I think, a bit too strongly) as follows:
George Washington ("religious liberal leaning toward deism")
[Alexander Hamilton, Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry are classified as "generally orthodox Christians opposed to deism"; John Witherspoon as a "definitely orthodox believer". Most researchers also classify John Jay in this more "orthodox" category. James Madison is a "religious liberal leaning toward deism"]
Benjamin Franklin ("deist")
John Adams ("liberal Christian strongly influenced by deism")
Thomas Jefferson ("deist")
Dulles stated about Jefferson: "He made a careful study of the philosophical writings of Viscount Henry Bolingbroke, a strict deist whose God was remote and unconcerned with human affairs."
Norman Cousins wrote a book on the religious views of ten of the Founding Fathers. In his introduction, he wrote:
Though most of them resisted the literal Biblical view of creation, they maintained respect for the Bible as the source of Judaeo-Christian belief . . . It is significant that most of the Founding Fathers grew up in a strong religious atmosphere; many had Calvinist family backgrounds . . . Most certainly they did not turn against God or lose their respect for religious belief . . . Not all the founders acknowledged a formal faith, but it was significant that their view of man had a deeply religious foundation. Rights were "God-given"; man was "endowed by his Creator"; there were "natural laws"; freedom was related to the "sacredness" of man . . . each of these men had highly developed spiritual beliefs.
(In God We Trust: The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the American Founding Fathers, New York: Harper & Bros., 1958, 8-10, 14) Likewise, Ralph Ketcham, author of a 753-page biography of James Madison, makes a statement that well applies to the Founding Fathers as a group:
Certain elements of Christian thought had almost universal acceptance in colonial America . . . Madison's Christian education gave him an extremely important overview of man and society . . . To them all, the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and the 12th chapter of Romans were canonical . . . From the Christian tradition, he inherited . . . an understanding of human dignity as well as depravity, and a conviction that vital religion could contribute importantly to the general welfare.
(James Madison: A Biography, New York: Macmillan, 1971, 46-50) George Washington (1732-1799) constantly referred to God's direct intervention, or Providence, especially with respect to the American Revolution:
The hand of Providence has been so conspicuous in all this that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations.
(James Thomas Flexner, Washington: The Indispensable Man, Boston: Little, Brown, & Co., 1974, 125; comment of 20 August 1778, with reference to the Battle of Monmouth: 28 June, 1778) On the day after Yorktown (the ending battle of the war), he spoke of the:
. . . reiterated and astonishing interpositions of Providence.
(Jared Sparks, editor, The Writings of George Washington, Boston: American Stationer's Co., 1837, 12 volumes; Vol. XII: 402; comment of 20 October 1781) Ten years later, he was still repeating these sentiments:
I am sure there never was a people, who had more reason to acknowledge a divine interposition in their affairs; than those of the United States; and I should be pained to believe, that they have forgotten that agency, which was so often manifested during our revolution, or that they failed ton consider the omnipotence of that God, who is alone able to protect them.
(Sparks, ibid., XII, 403; letter to General Armstrong, 11 March 1792; the editor adds: "examples of this kind might be multiplied indefinitely") Washington's official correspondence and speeches are filled with the utmost piety:
Above all, the pure and benign light of Revelation [has] had a meliorating influence on mankind, and increased the blessings of society . . . I now make my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the state over which you preside, in his holy protection . . . that he would be most graciously pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation.
(Sparks, ibid., XII, 403-404; circular letter to the Governors on the disbanding of the army: 8 June 1783) The commander-in-chief of the American army strongly urged worship among his soldiers:
As a chaplain is allowed to each regiment, see that the men regularly attend divine worship.
(Ibid., XII, 402; instructions to the Brigadier Generals, 26 May 1777) Washington even exhibited a tolerance towards Catholicism: a highly unusual thing in America at that time:
Prudence, Policy, and a true Christian Spirit, will lead us to look with Compassion upon their Errors without insulting them. While we are contending for our own Liberty, we should be very cautious of violating the Rights of Conscience in others, ever considering that God alone is the Judge of the Hearts of Men, and to him only in this case, they are answerable.
(James Morton Smith, editor, George Washington: A Profile, New York: Hill & Wang, 1969: chapter: "George Washington and Religious Liberty," by Paul F. Boller, Jr., p. 169; letter to Benedict Arnold, concerning Catholicism in Canada: 14 September, 1775)
I regret exceedingly that the disputes between the Protestants and Roman Catholics should be carried to the serious alarming height mentioned in your letters . . . I was not without hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy of the present age would have put an effectual stop to contentions of this kind.
(Cousins, ibid., 67; letter to Sir Edward Newenham of Ireland, 22 June 1792)
His presidential speeches abound in reverence towards God as well. For example, here are excerpts from his inaugural address of 30 April 1789:
It would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being, who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of the nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a government instituted by themselves . . . homage to the great Author of every public and private good . . . No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the affairs of men, more than the people of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency . . . and the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained . . . I shall take my present leave, but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the human race, in humble supplication . . . so his divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views . . . on which the success of this government must depend.
(Sparks, ibid., XII, 1-6) Washington even mentioned God in messages to the hallowed US Congress (imagine that!):
Thus supported by a firm trust in the great Arbiter of the universe . . .
(Ibid., 6; reply to the answer of the Senate)
I humbly implore that Being, on whose will the fate of nations depends, to crown with success our mutual endeavors.
(Ibid., 36; speech to Congress: 3 December 1793)
Let us unite, therefore, in imploring the Supreme Ruler of nations to spread his holy protection over these United States.
(Ibid., 54; speech to Congress: 19 November 1794) The Thanksgiving Proclamations are sterling examples of Washington's warm piety:
It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the Providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor . . . both Houses of Congress have . . . requested me "to recommend . . . a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God" . . . Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted . . . to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the Beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks . . . And also, that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and ruler of Nations, and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions.
(Ibid., 119-120; 3 October 1789) It is in an especial manner our duty as a people, with devout reverence and affectionate gratitude, to acknowledge our many and great obligations to Almighty God . . . Deeply penetrated with this sentiment, I, George Washington, do recommend . . . to set apart and observe . . . a day of public thanksgiving and prayer . . . to the Great Ruler of nations.
(Ibid., 132-134; 1 January 1795)

Washington, reconstructed from painstaking research, at age 57, 19, and 45
[ source / courtesy of Mount Vernon ]
His farewell address of 17 September 1796 offers similar thoughts:
Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports . . . And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle . . . Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its Virtue? . . . I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend.
(Ibid., 214-235) He expressed one of the key elements of this speech again in the following year, in speaking to clergy:
Believing, as I do, that religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society . . .
(Ibid., 245; address to the clergy of Philadelphia, March 1797) Washington thought soldiers should be given Bibles:
It is now too late to make the Attempt. It would have pleased me, if Congress should have made such an important present.
(Cousins, ibid., 56; reply to Presbyterian pastor John Rodgers, on 11 June 1783) In 1789 the first Congress appropriated funds for the support of Christian missionaries among the Indians, which was approved by President Washington:
The object . . . would be the happiness of Indians, teaching them the great duties of religion and morality, and to inculcate a friendship and an attachment to the United States.
(This Nation Under God, Joseph F. Costanzo, S. J., New York: Herder and Herder, 1964, 147-148) Ten years earlier he had addressed the Delaware chiefs in similar fashion:
You do well to wish to learn our arts and way of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are.
(Cousins, ibid., 55; speech of 21 May 1779) God's Providence is without question the leading theme in his references to God and Christianity:
While we are zealously performing the duties of good Citizens and Soldiers we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of Religion. To the distinguished Character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to add the more distinguished Character of Christian. The signal Instances of providential Goodness which we have experienced and which have now almost crowned our labours with complete success, demand frm us in a peculiar manner the warmest returns of Gratitude and Piety to the Supreme Author of all Good.
(Cousins, ibid., 51; General Orders at Valley Forge: 2 May 1778)
Providence has heretofore saved us in a remarkable manner, and on this we must principally rely.
(Cousins, ibid., 52; letter to John Parke Custis, 22 January 1777)
The determinations of Providence are all ways wise; often inscrutable, and though its decrees appear to bear hard upon us at times is nevertheless meant for gracious purposes . . .
(Cousins, ibid., 53; letter to Bryan Fairfax, 1 March 1778)
I consider it an indispensable duty to close this last solemn act of my official life by commending the interests of our dearest country to the protection of Almighty God, and those who have the superintendence of them, to his holy keeping.
(Cousins, ibid., 56; address to Congress, 23 December 1783)
Disposed, at every suitable opportunity to acknowledge publicly our infinite obligations to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for rescuing our Country from the brink of destruction; I cannot fail at this time to ascribe all the honour of our late successes to the same glorious Being.
(Cousins, ibid., 57; to the ministers, elders, deacons, and members of the reformed German congregation of New York, 27 November 1783)
The power and goodness of the Almighty were strongly manifested in the events of our late glorious revolution, and his kind interposition on our behalf has been no less visible in the establishment of our present equal government.
(Cousins, ibid., 62; message to the Hebrew congregations of Philadelphia, New York, Charleston, and Richmond, December 1790)
It [is] not for man to scan the wisdom of Providence. The best he can do is to submit to its decrees.
(Cousins, ibid., 64; letter to Henry Knox, 2 March 1797)
On this, as upon all other occasions, I hope the best. It has always been my belief that Providence has not led us so far in the path of Independence of one Nation, to throw us into the Arms of another.
(Cousins, ibid., letter to Henry Knox, 27 March, 1798)
At disappointments and losses which are the effects of Providential acts, I never repine; because I am sure that the alwise disposer of events knows better than we do, what is best for us, or what we deserve.
(Cousins, ibid., 68; letter to William Pearce, 25 May 1794)
[A]s these are the effects of Providential dispensations resignation is our duty.
(Cousins, ibid., 68; letter to William Pearce, 14 September 1794)
These being acts of Providence and not within our control, I never repine at them . . .
(Cousins, ibid., 68; letter to William Pearce, 27 March 1796; this letter and the previous two had to do with crop failures)
Or at least we may, with a kind of grateful and pious exultation, trace the finger of Providence through these dark and mysterious events, which first induced the states to appoint a general convention . . . we had but too much reason to fear that confusion and misery were coming rapidly upon us. That the same good Providence may still continue to protect us . . . is the earnest prayer of, my dear sir, your faithful friend, etc.
(Cousins, ibid., 70; letter to Jonathan Trumbull, 20 July 1788)

A striking bust made from the 1785 life mask, by Houdon
Other expressions of Christian piety abound in his writings and utterances, too:
[L]et me not arrogate the merit to human imbecility, but rather ascribe whatever glory may result from our successful struggle to a higher and more efficient Cause . . . it is our common duty to pay the tribute of gratitude to the greatest and best of Beings.
(Cousins, ibid., 58; reply to an address from the clergy, gentlemen of the law, and physicians of Philadelphia, 13 December 1783)
[N]o man, who is profligate in his morals, or a bad member of the civil community, can possibly be a true Christian, or a credit to his own religious society.
(Cousins, ibid., 59; reply to an address from the general assembly of Presbyterian churches in the United States, sent on 26 May 1789; Washington's reply is undated)
I readily join with you that "while just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support."
(Cousins, ibid., 60; reply to an address from the synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in North America, sent on 9 October 1789; Washington's reply is undated)
I am not less ardent in my wish that you may succeed in your plan of toleration in religious matters. Being no bigot myself to any mode of worship, I am disposed to indulge the professors of Christianity in the church, that road to Heaven, which to them shall seem the most direct plainest easiest and least liable to exception.
(Cousins, ibid., 71; letter to the Marquis de Lafayette, 15 august 1787)
Washington biographers fill in additional details of his religious beliefs and practices:
The church was a social affair in Virginia in George Washington's day. It is doubtful if he ever subscribed in his heart to the Episcopal creed . . . In one of his thousands of letters does the name Jesus Christ appear, nor St. Paul -- seldom, indeed, even the word "God." For all three he almost invariably used the word "Providence" -- except in public addresses -- and left all questions of theology to what he called "the professors of religion." He believed thoroughly, from observation and practical experience, in the value of the religious institution to society -- government could not do without it -- but where his personal belief was concerned he remained silent . . .
(Francis Rufus Bellamy, The Private Life of George Washington, New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1951, 149, 359) Jared Sparks, editor of the 12-volume collection of Washington's writings, observed:
After a long and minute examination of the writings of Washington, public and private . . . I can affirm, that I have never seen a single hint, or expression, from which it could be inferred, that he had any doubt of the Christian revelation . . . whenever he alludes in any manner to religion, it is done with seriousness and reverence . . . How far he examined the grounds of his faith is uncertain . . . He was educated in the Episcopal Church, to which he always adhered; and myu conviction is that he believed the fundamental doctrines of Christianity as usually taught in that Church . . . but without a particle of intolerance, or disrespect for the faith and modes of worship adopted by Christians of other denominations.
(Sparks, ibid., XII, 411, 403)
What we did prove, and quite conclusively, is that Washington cannot be called a Deist — at least, not in a sense that excludes his being Christian. Although he did most often address God in the proper names a Deist might use — such as "Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be" and "Disposer of all human events" — the actions that Washington expected God to perform, as expressed both in his official public prayers (whether as general or as president) and in his private prayers as recorded, are the sorts of actions only the God of the Bible performs: interposing his actions in human events, forgiving sins, enlightening minds, bringing good harvests, intervening on behalf of one party in a struggle between good and evil (in this case, between liberty and the deprivation of liberty), etc. Many persons at the end of the 18th century were both Christians and Deists. But it cannot be said, in the simpleminded sense in which historians have become accustomed to putting it, that Washington was merely a Deist, or even that the God to whom he prayed was expected to behave like a Deist God at all.
(Michael Novak, Washington's Sun God, National Review Online, 14 March 2006)
See related articles:
George Washington: Christian or Deist? (Hercules Mulligan)
Was Washington Really a Deist? (Michael and Jana Novak)
Washington's Sun God (Michael Novak)
George Washington and Religion (Wikipedia)
George Washington: Christian or Deist? (William Connery)
George Washington and Religion (Peter Henriques)
* * * * *
Were the Founding Fathers "Deists," "Freethinkers," and "Infidels?"
Founding Fathers, David L. Holmes (Encyclopedia Britannica)
The Deist Minimum, Avery Cardinal Dulles (First Things, January 2005)
The Religion of the Founding Fathers (American Revolution Blog)
The Founding Fathers and Deism (David Barton)
Faiths of the Founding Fathers -- A Review (Bob Cornwall)
"One Nation Under Generic Supreme Being" (James Watkins)
Founding Fathers, Deists, Orthodox Christians, and the Spiritual Context of 18th Century America (Jim Peterson)
Founding Fathers Religion Debate and Poll
Last edited on Tue May 27th, 2008 12:11 am by Dave Armstrong
____________________ I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2100+ papers & web pages (free) & 17 apologetic books (4 sale: 15 E-Books: $25)
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
PassthePeace1 Member

| Joined: | Sun Jul 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 27 |
| First Name: | Pam | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist, Quaker, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 29th, 2008 02:52 pm |
|
Thanks for the great post! So I take it that the rumor of Washington converting to Catholicism on his deathbed....is just that a rumor?
Peace be with you...Pam
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong Network Apologist

| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 2445 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 29th, 2008 09:37 pm |
|
I didn't run across any solid evidence of it, but I have heard about it. I find it quite implausible on its face. John Wayne and Gary Cooper both did this, though. 
____________________ I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2100+ papers & web pages (free) & 17 apologetic books (4 sale: 15 E-Books: $25)
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
PassthePeace1 Member

| Joined: | Sun Jul 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 27 |
| First Name: | Pam | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist, Quaker, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 30th, 2008 06:01 am |
|
Awhttp://www....shucks!!! That would have been too cool. But hey, the Duke and Gary Cooper ain't too bad....thanks for the info.
Peace be with you...Pam
|
|
|
Steven Barrett Member

| Joined: | Tue Nov 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | Hadley, Absurdistan, AKA , Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 1566 |
| First Name: | Steven | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Episcopal communicant, Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 1st, 2008 02:53 am |
|
Two things: Was John Wayne brought in by a Jesuit? Only appropriate in light of his role as Sgt. Stryker, USMC and the Jesuits were long nicknamed the "Pope's Marines." (But I heard members from other branches refer to them as Uncle Sam's Misguided Children.")
How appropriate that Gary "Pride of the Yankees" Cooper would've played Lou Gehrig whose memorial marker stands alongside those of every Pope who said a Mass in the "House that Ruth Built!" Don't forget the Babe was one of us, too! 
Last edited on Sun Jun 1st, 2008 02:55 am by Steven Barrett
____________________ James Michael Curley to a young Thomas “Tip” O’Neill -- “Son, it’s nice to be important, but it’s more important to be nice.”
|
|
|
EMarshallBuckles Member

| Joined: | Mon Nov 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | Rockville (Near Richmond), Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 683 |
| First Name: | Marshall | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Christian Church,Episcopal Church,Baptist denomination,learning about RCC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 08:25 am |
|
I had wondered about Thomas Jefferson, what if any faith he had in his finaly years (I've been to Monticello, near Charlottesville, VA, several times and to various other places with which he had connections or was in and around and read a lot about him - I also worked, for a while, in Virginia's Capitol Square in a building named after Jefferson, ha, ha as well as have been in the Capitol building designed by him many times). Once, when visiting Christ Episcopal Church in Charlottesville, VA, for Holy Communion, I found a publication there which said that in Jefferson's latter years, he was very supportive of the local churches. It said that when Jefferson died, he was buried out of the local Episcopal Church by an Episcopalian Priest who conducted his grave side services. I tend to doubt that his family or local citizens would have allowed that if he had been the deist that some try to say that he was. I suspect that he probably did have a basic faith in Christ by the time that he was close to death.
As for George Washington, following, if I can get it copied and posted, is an article by James E. Kiefer which may explain some of Washington's behavior regarding church during his time. I think that Washington was a Christian, yet I think that he also was very careful about it, especially after he became President, because he likely was very concerned about trying to prevent religious wars here in the United States which had plagued other nations. I think that he was being very even handed, so to speak. Anyway, please see the following:
Edward B. Pusey (18 Sep 1882)
Richard Hurrell Froude (28 Feb 1836)
John Keble (29 March 1866)
John Henry Newman (11 Aug 1890)
In the early Church, it was the normal practice for every baptised Christian to receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion at least once a week. But gradually the practice changed. It was still understood that a Christian would attend a celebration of the Liturgy every Sunday, but attending the Liturgy did not necessarily mean receiving the Sacrament. By the early 1500's, most Christians in Western Europe other than clergy or monastics received the Sacrament once a year, at Easter. The rest of the year, a typical devout Christian would attend the Liturgy every Sunday, but, not understanding Latin, would spend most of his time praying silently or in an undertone in his pew, while the priest read the Liturgy in Latin in an undertone at the altar some distance away. Partway through the service, a bell would ring and the priest would hold up the consecrated bread and wine, and the private prayers would stop for a moment as all eyes focused on what Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself had appointed as the vehicle of His abiding presence among His people. Then the private prayers would resume.
It was the hope of the sixteenth-century Reformers to restore the ancient practice of the Church by celebrating the Liturgy in the language of the people, and encouraging the people to participate, not only by listening to the readings and joining in the prayers, but also by reverently receiving the Sacrament at every Liturgy they attended. In England, at least, they only partly achieved their goals.
The English Reformers provided that, at every celebration of the Liturgy, after the prayers and Bible readings and the sermon and Creed, there would be a general confession of sins, and that those intending to receive the Sacrament would come forward and kneel at the altar rail to repeat the Prayer of Confession, while the rest of the congregation would remain in their pews, and recite the prayer along with them. The priest would turn around and see how many worshippers were at the rail. If there were at least three, he would place the bread and wine on the altar and proceed to consecrate them. Unless there were at least three, he was to close the service at that point with a Blessing and Dismissal. The theory was that when the people were thus dramatically reminded that receiving the Sacrament was the reason for having the service, they would flock to receive. Instead, they simply got used to the idea that the Liturgy would be celebrated only a few times a year. On most Sundays, the Sunday morning service in most parishes consisted of Morning Prayer (one Reading from the Psalms, one Old Testament Reading, one New Testament Reading, interspersed with Prayers and Hymns, taking about fifteen minutes), Litany (prayer with responses, taking about eight minutes), and Ante-Communion (first part of the Liturgy, with the Ten Commandments, a reading from an Epistle and another from a Gospel, the Creed, plus a few hymns and prayers, lasting about fifteen minutes). As the years passed, this was reduced in many parishes to Morning Prayer with Hymns and Sermon.
Then, in the 1830's, several lecturers at Oxford University, reading their copies of the Book of Common Prayer, noticed that this was not the intended state of affairs. The Prayer Book provided for a sermon at the Liturgy, but not at Morning Prayer, for the taking of a collection at the Liturgy, but not at Morning Prayer. In every way it was clear that the compilers of the Prayer Book had intended the Liturgy to be the principal service on every Sunday and Feast Day. So the lecturers got busy and wrote a series of pamphlets explaining this and various related points to their readers. They called the pamphlets Tracts For the Times, By Residents in Oxford, and the public referred to them as The Oxford Tracts.
The immediate result was a total washout. The majority of their readers, both clergy and laity, responded in effect by saying: "Yes, you have shown that the universal custom of the Church from apostolic times down to the sixteenth century was for every Christian congregation to celebrate the Lord's Supper every Sunday. You have shown that it was the clear intent of the reformers here in England to continue this practice. And I suppose that in theory it would be a good thing if we did continue it. But, well, you know...."
The problem was that Englishmen had forgotten what it was like to celebrate the Liturgy every Sunday. Because they had no experience of such a thing, they simply could not imagine its actually being done. And when an occasional priest who had been convinced by the Tracts tried to abolish ten o'clock Morning Prayer on Sundays in favor of a ten o'clock Liturgy instead, his congregation simply refused to have anything to do with it.
Eventually the leaders of the Tractarian Movement (as it came to be called) saw their mistake and began advising priests as follows. "Don't try to change the ten o'clock service. Leave it as Morning Prayer. Start another service at eight o'clock. Make it Holy Communion. Get anyone you can to come to it. But be there every Sunday at eight and celebrate the Liturgy even if there is only one person present besides yourself. And keep it up for Years!" And they did. Eventually the generation of Anglicans who said, "But we have never had the Liturgy except at Christmas, Easter and Pentecost. That's the way it has always been!" was replaced by a new generation who said: "Every Sunday we have Holy Communion at eight and Morning Prayer at ten, and Evening Prayer at six. That's the way it has always been!" At first, it was understood that the Early Service was only for the exceptionally devout, perhaps ten per cent of a typical congregation. But the numbers grew, and gradually the ten o'clock service became Holy Communion on the first Sunday of each month, and the rest of the time Morning Prayer, and then the first and third Sundays of each month, and every Sunday in Lent, and then.... It is perhaps worth mentioning that, while the Tractarians were recovering for the Anglican Church the practice of celebrating the Liturgy every Sunday and every major Feast Day (and, in the larger parishes, every day), other Churches that had lost that practice in the sixteenth century were also recovering it (partly because their theologians were paying some attention to the Tractarians), and the Roman Catholic Church was gradually encouraging its people to receive the Holy Communion every Sunday, and more generally to be participants in the Liturgy and not mere spectators. Indeed, I understand that in the East Orthodox Churches, the receiving of the Holy Communion by the ordinary layperson every Sunday is far commoner now than it was a century ago.
[Note: a correspondent reminds me that, almost a century before the Tractarians, the Wesleys were receiving the Holy Communion daily at Oxford. He suggests that the picture of a pre-Tractarian England in which frequent celebrations of the Eucharist were unheard-of smacks of Puseyite propaganda. Point taken. It was wrong of me to state that frequent celebrations were unheard-of. On the other hand, there were many parishes in which celebrations were rare, and the Tractarian movement greatly reduced the number of such parishes.]
Back to the subject of the Oxford Tracts. There were ninety Tracts in all, written over the eight years from 1833 to 1841 -- about one Tract per month. They created a school of thought and action in the Anglican Communion that came to be called the Tractarian Movement, or Puseyism, or the Oxford Movement. (Kindly note that the Oxford Group, or Moral Re-Armament, or Buchmanism, was founded in the 1920's or 1930's by Frank Buchman, and is not at all the same thing). The Tractarians defended what is sometimes called High Anglicanism, or High Churchmanship, which involves emphasis on the continuity of the Anglican Church from earliest times (in the third century or earlier) through the sixteenth century, and down to the present. Part of what is meant by continuity is illustrated by something I have heard from a friend who teaches English history of the Tudor and Stuart period. He has researched the history of a certain small monastery. In the early 1500's, the monks chanted the Psalms in Latin every day from the book called the Breviary, as a part of the monastic routine. When their monastery was abolished by Henry VIII, they were not simply set adrift, but were attached to the choir of a cathedral, where they continued to chant the Psalms in Latin. When King Henry died and Edward succeeded him, they chanted the Psalms in English as part of Morning and Evening Prayer, as found in the Book of Common Prayer. When Mary came to the throne, they switched back to Latin and the Breviary. When Mary died and Elizabeth came to the throne, they returned to chanting the Psalms in English from the Book of Common Prayer. And through all these years, they never missed a day. There is no reason to suppose that they thought of themselves as having turned their backs on one Church or religion and adopted another. (The change from Latin to English was doubtless a jolt for some of them, but no more so than the same change for Roman Catholic monks in our own time.)
It must not be supposed that the Tractarians were concerned only with a renewed emphasis on the sacraments. They were instumental in stirring up the Church's concern for the welfare, both spiritual and material, of the working classes. The building of factories had flooded many areas with workers who were without churches to minister to them. The Tractarians built churches in these areas, and in slum areas, and staffed them with dedicated priests. The influence of their work was widespread. For example:
One disciple of Pusey was R M Benson, the founder of the Society of St John the Evangelist. One of Benson's disciples was Fr C N Field, who came to America and became deeply interested in the housing conditions of the poor in Boston. One of his disciples was Mary Kingsbury Simkhovitch. She says that it was Fr Field and the other priests of the Ssje who first taught her to visit the poor. Mrs Simkhovitch is accounted one of the founders of social work. she founded Greenwich House in New York City. One of her disciples was Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor in the New Deal. She and Mrs Simkhovitch went to Harold Ickes and persuaded him to put public housing on the agenda of the New Deal. Thus the American public housing program of the 1930's and after was indirectly a result of the Tractarian movemento [I owe this point to Mr. Robert Rea.]
The leaders of the Tractarian Movement were Froude, Keble, Pusey, and Newman, all fellows of Oriel College, Oxford.
Richard Hurrell Froude (1803--28 Feb 1836) was a scholar whose conversation did much to encourage the other tractarians. He died while the movement was still young. In 1838-9, shortly after his death, his friends published his diary and some papers he had written. One of the papers was called, "On Reserve in Communicating Religious Doctrine," and pointed out that in the early years of the Church, when being a Christian was an offence punishable by death, Christian church services were not open to the general public, and Christians were sometime evasive when asked about their beliefs by outsiders. Froude thought that this might justify Christians today in not volunteering information about their beliefs to those who would only misunderstand and sneer at them. The paper caused a public uproar. Many persons already suspected that the Tractarians were secret agents of the Pope, and Froude's paper looked like an explicit admission that they were up to something crooked.
John Keble (1792--29 March 1866), ordained in 1816, tutor at Oxford from 1818 to 1823, published in 1827 a book called The Christian Year, containing poems for the Sundays and Feast Days of the Church Year. The book sold many copies, and was highly effective in spreading Keble's devotional and theological views. Keble was professor of poetry at Oxford from 1831 to 1841. In 1833, Parliament voted to combine several dioceses and reduce the number of bishops, and on 14 July 1833, in the University Chapel, Keble responded with a sermon entitled "On National Apostacy," which is generally accounted as the beginning of the Oxford Movement. (It is also called the Assizes Sermon. "Assizes" is the English word for a term of the law courts, and at the beginning of each term the judges hear a sermon called the Assizes Sermon.) Keble wrote 9 of the 90 Tracts. The Tractarians urged the study of the early Christian writers, and arranged for their translation and publication. Keble translated the works of Iranaeus of Lyons (second century). and produced an edition of the works of Richard Hooker, a distinguished Anglican theologian who died in 1600. He also wrote more books of poems, and numerous hymn lyrics. Three years after his death, his friends and admirers established Keble College at Oxford.
Edward Bouverie Pusey (1800--16 September 1882) was competent in Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic, and was Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford, and a canon of Christ Church Cathedral in Oxford, from 1828 until his death. He wrote two of the Oxford Tracts (on Fasting and on Baptism), and preached a sermon on the Eucharist that got him suspended from university preaching for two years. This episode gained publicity for the Tractarian Movement, and greatly increased the sales of the Tracts. In 1845 he helped to found a convent in London, the first Anglican convent since the 1500's. His best-known books defend the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the inerrancy of Scripture (see his Daniel the Prophet, and The Minor Prophets). In the great cholera epidemic of 1866, he did outstanding work in caring for the sick. Two years after his death, his friends and admirers established Pusey House at Oxford, a library and study center.
John Henry Newman (1801--11 August 1890) became a Calvinist in his teens, and moved thence to religious liberalism, and thence, under the influence of Froude at Oriel College, to High Anglicanism. He edited the entire series of the Oxford Tracts, and wrote 24 of them himself (including Tract Ninety, which brought the series to an abrupt end), but his books had a more profound influence, particularly his Lectures On the Prophetical Office of the Church (1837), his University Sermons (1843), and his Parochial and Plain Sermons (1834-1842). He also wrote extensively on the theologians and theological issues of the first few centuries of the Church, as in his Arians of the Fourth Century (1833) and his translation, with notes and commentary, of Selected Treatises of St. Athanasius (1842-1844). It was his conviction, based on historical studies, that the Anglican Church was in its teaching and organization closer to the early Church than the Roman Church was, and that consequently the Anglican Church had a better right than the Roman to be called Catholic and the spiritual heir of the apostles. However, his writings were taken by many readers to be a defense of Romanist or semi-Romanist beliefs.
Matters came to a head in 1841 with the publication of Tract Ninety, written by Newman. This tract dealt with the Thirty-Nine Articles, adopted by the Church of England in the sixteenth century. Anglican clergy in Newman's day were required to subscribe them. Opponents of the Tractarians often complained that the Tractarian position was too close to that of Rome, and included beliefs condemned by the Articles. To this, Newman replied by asserting that the Articles had been drawn up (like a modern party platform) in an attempt to include as many persons as possible, and that they therefore were worded in such a way that someone could hold a position not very different from the Roman one and nevertheless be able to sign the Articles with a clear conscience. For example,
Article 25 (Of the Sacraments) reads, in part: The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, Or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them.
The first reaction of the reader will be that this condemns the practice of holding up the consecrated Elements at the Liturgy so that the worshippers might reverently behold them. But a Roman Catholic, though he would insist that this is a proper thing to do, would, after a moment's thought, agree that this is not the purpose for which the Sacrament was instituted. He would therefore find no difficulty in signing this particular Article, or at least this portion of the Article.
Article 22 (On Purgatory) reads, in part: The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons,...
IS... repugnant to the Word of God.
Here, Newman says that he repudiates the Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, but not the doctrine that there is a Purgatory. This may seem like an obviously dishonest play on words, but in fact there is a distinction between the ideas of Purgatory as Purification and Purgatory as Punishment. In the writings of (for example) Dante in the fourteenth century, Purgatory is a place where Christians are cleansed after death from any lingering affection for sin, and are sanctified so that they may enter with pure hearts and minds into the joy of heaven. That the process of being made better is sometimes painful is incidental. On the other hand, in the writings of Roman Catholics in the sixteenth century (see More and Fisher among those writing in English), Purgatory is treated almost entirely as a place where one is tortured as punishment and payment for one's misdeeds. One can repudiate the latter notion (which both in the time of Fisher and More and in the later time of Newman could not unreasonably be called "the Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory") without repudiating the former one -- the one expressed in Dante. And Newman, in his poem The Dream of Gerontius, does in fact magnificently reassert the Dantean understanding of Purgatory.
Tract Ninety had a very different effect on the British public from the one that Newman had hoped for. It was taken as proof that the Tractarians were undercover agents for the Pope, dishonest men who cleverly twisted the words of creeds around to mean something quite different from their plain meaning. (The publication two years earlier of Froude's "On Reserve in Communicating Religious Doctrine," referred to above, helped to re-enforce the suspicion that the Tractarians had a hidden agenda.) The Bishop of Oxford asked the Tractarians to discontinue the series, and they did. Newman was crushed and bewildered by the fury that descended on him from all sides. He was a gentle man, not relishing the rough-and-tumble of controversy, and being called a Jesuitical scoundrel and hypocrite by men whose good will and good opinion of him meant a great deal to him was a shattering experience. In 1843 he resigned his post at Oxford, and his position as vicar of St Mary's in Oxford, and went into retirement, where he devoted himself to writing a book called An Essay On the Development of Christian Doctrine. In October of 1845 he was received into the Roman Catholic Church, and a few weeks later published the Essay. It argued that doctrinal positions could grow, and develop, and change, and that, although the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in modern times differed from the teachings of earlier times (as he had pointed out in his historical studies while still an Anglican), this was an instance of legitimate development of ideas. The Roman Church was uncertain how to make use of his talents. He was ordained as a priest, and it was proposed to establish a Roman Catholic University in Ireland and to put him in charge of it, but the plan fell through. He was also asked to prepare a new translation of the Scriptures into English for Roman Catholic use, but this project also was cancelled. Suspected of Romanism when an Anglican, he was suspected of Anglicanism when a Roman, and his essay, "On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine" narrowly escaped condemnation as heretical.
In 1864, Newman was publicly attacked by an Anglican priest, Charles Kingsley, who suggested that Newman, even when supposedly an Anglican, had been secretly an agent of Rome, serving one side while wearing the uniform of the other. Newman replied in a book called Apologia Pro Vita Sua (A Defense of the Author's Life), in which he explained the mental processes by which he came to hold the Roman Catholic position. The result of this controversy was to win for Newman a great deal of public sympathy and affection. In 1870 (the year in which the first Vatican Council proclaimed the dogma of Papal infallibility), he published An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent (usually called The Grammar of Assent), in which he considers the process by which one decides to commit oneself to a certain intellectual position. In 1879 he was summoned to Rome and made a cardinal-deacon by Pope Leo XIII. (He was never a bishop. The College of Cardinals is the group of men who elect a new Bishop of Rome (that is, a new Pope) when the old one dies. It is the ancient custom that a bishop should be elected by the clergy of his diocese, and to be a cardinal is to be an honorary clergyman of the city of Rome and vicinity. There are cardinal-bishops, cardinal-priests, and cardinal-deacons. Although most cardinals are bishops, one need only be a priest in order to be a cardinal-priest, and a priest or deacon in order to be a cardinal-deacon. In this century, the Vatican has adopted a policy of appointing only bishops to the College of Cardinals.) After becoming a cardinal-deacon, Newman spent the remainder of his life quietly in Birmingham, at a religious house which he had established there called the Oratory of St Phillip Neri. He died 11 August 1890.
Although the Tractarians were Anglicans, there is perhaps no Christian group that has not been in some degree influenced, directly or indirectly, by their work.
PRAYER (traditional language)Grant unto us, O God, that in all time of our testing we may Know thy presence and obey thy will; that, following the example of thy servants Edward Pusey, Richard Froude, John Keble, and John Newman, we may with integrity and courage accomplish what thou givest us to do, and endure what thou givest us to bear; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.
PRAYER (contemporary language)Grant, O God, that in all time of our testing we may know your Presence and obey your will; that, following the examples of your servants Edward Pusey, Richard Froude, John Keble, and John Newman, we may with integrity and courage accomplish what you give us to do, and endure what you give us to bear; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Psalm 106:1-5 or 84:7-12
1 Peter 2:19-23
Matthew 13:44-52 (St2)
|
Unless otherwise indicated, this biographical sketch was written by James E. Kiefer.
|
|
|
 Current time is 09:27 am | |
|
|
|
 |
|