Thoughts on the Puritans continued... (for introduction, see "Who Were the Puritans?" Part 1 and Part 2)
“Canterbury fought with Rome in the days of Henry VIII and Edward VI and with Geneva in the days of Elizabeth….What made the second battle so
acrimonious was that it was between foes in the same Protestant household.”[1] So
writes Horton Davies in Worship and
Theology in England:
From Cranmer to Hooker 1534-1603, and this is an accurate summation of the
matter. The Puritans were convinced that the Church of England was “but hafly
reformed.” They wanted to restore pure worship as they saw it in the
Scriptures.
The Puritans’ Work
Toward Reform
When it
became evident that Elizabeth was not about to
institute sweeping reform of worship in England, the Puritans set to work
in Parliament and in parish churches. Fairly broad unanimity had been achieved
doctrinally with the Thirty-Nine Articles (1563, 1571), but the practice of the
church left much to be desired. Many parish ministers began to conduct public
worship as they pleased. In the convocation of clergy in 1563, the Puritans set
forward their desired reforms:
“…that at the celebration of the
Lord's Supper the posture of kneeling, as suggesting the adoration of the
elements, should be left indifferent; that the sign of the cross in baptism
should be disused; that the wearing of copes and surplices be abolished, so
that all ministers should use 'a grave and comely side (i.e., long)
garment' or preaching gown; and that they should not be compelled to wear such
caps and gowns as the Romish clergy.
“This overture not being approved,
a motion was then brought forward to the effect that while Sundays and the
special feasts associated with the events of our Saviour's life should be
religiously observed, all other holidays should be abolished; that in all
parish churches the minister in common prayer should turn his face to the
people; that the cross in baptism be omitted; that kneeling at the sacrament be
left to the discretion of the minister; and that it should suffice if he wear
the surplice once, provided that no minister should say service or minister the
sacraments but in comely garment or habit. After some discussion this motion
was carried to the vote, when it appeared there was a majority in its favour by
forty-three against thirty-five. But the proxies had then to be counted and
these reversed the decision by one vote and only one, there being now
fifty-eight for the motion and fifty-nine against. So that by the vote of one
man, who was not present at the debate—that 'odd, shy man' as he has been
called, it was thus determined to make no alteration in the ceremonies, and the
Court party, therefore, carried their point in that memorable Convocation.”[2]
The Puritans
were stung by this defeat, but they were also emboldened by the knowledge that
they had such widespread support. They continued their push for changes in
worship. However, in 1566, Archbishop Matthew Parker laid out his
“Advertisements” which reinforced the status quo.
The
Puritans continued to work for change in Parliament, and their attacks zeroed
in on the Book of Common Prayer. But
in addition to this they began to publish and preach relentlessly. Not only did
they put out polemical literature, they also published much devotional
material, seeking to revive true religion in England from the ground up through
families. The wealthier Puritan supporters endowed Emmanuel
College at Cambridge University
to keep a steady supply of well-trained Puritan pastors and teachers. They
supported lectureships in various towns to disseminate sound doctrine. An
entire network of “prophesyings” arose, which were meetings at which Puritan
ministers would discuss the meaning and application of Scripture.
We now need
to ask, “If the two factions were in broad doctrinal agreement, what
differences in beliefs drove this struggle?”
Concepts of Scripture
Article
Seven of the Thirty-Nine Articles, “Of the Sufficiency of the Scriptures for
Salvation,” reads, “Holye Scripture conteyneth all thinges
necessarie to saluation: so that whatsoeuer is not read therein, nor may be
proued therby, is not to be required of anye man, that it shoulde be beleued as
an article of the fayth, or be thought requisite as necessarie to saluation”
(1572). The Puritans believed that the Church of England was not following this
article to its true conclusion in its form of church order and worship. They
believed that the Scripture governed more than simply doctrine and ethics. The
Scripture provided the model by which the church should be structured. The
church ought not to practice anything in worship which did not receive direct
sanction from the Bible. The later influential Puritan theologian, William
Ames, expressed it this way:
“All things necessary to salvation
are contained in the Scriptures and also those things necessary for the
instruction and edification of the church….Therefore, Scripture is not a
partial but a perfect rule of faith and morals. And no observance can be
continually and everywhere necessary in the church of God,
on the basis of any tradition or other authority, unless it is contained in the
Scriptures.”[3]
The
“Anglicans,” on the other hand, argued that God had indeed given us everything
we need for salvation in the Scriptures. However, God has not given us
everything that is to be done in church in particular. God was not concerned
about the details, if you will, and he had left those to be determined by the
wisdom gained from church tradition and right reason.
The Puritans
thought this too convenient. It made it far too easy to set aside anything in
the Bible which did not fit with contemporary practice. Instead, for the
Puritans the Bible was the comprehensive word of God for all of life.
Concepts of Mankind
In addition
to differences in their handling of Scripture, the two parties differed in
their estimation of mankind. Although both believed in original sin, the
Puritans held that the effects of original sin were much more pervasive than
the Anglicans did. Thus, the Puritans tended to have a dim view of man’s
reason, while the Anglicans had a more positive estimation. The Puritan William
Perkins taught that original sin “is corruption engendered in our first
conception, whereby every faculty of soul and body is prone and disposed to
evil.”[4] As
Davies says, “If the Anglican apologist claimed that all God reveals must be
comprehended by human reason, because the author of both revelation and reason
is God, the Puritan replied that this was to make reason a judge over revelation,
and man an arbiter of God.”[5]
Concepts of the
Church
While both
Anglicans and Puritans believed in a national church, they differed over
exactly what that meant. Puritans believed that the church comprised everyone
in the kingdom; however, it was a mixed multitude. While all were baptized and
thus members of the church, not all who were church members were actually
converted. Furthermore, the Puritans sought to restore the church as it was
practiced by the apostles. The Anglicans, on the other hand, did not agree that
the Puritans were correct. They believed that the New Testament did not
prescribe a once-for-all form of the church, and that with a Christian state
there were important difference between the church in apostolic times and the
church in Elizabethan England.
Concepts of the
Sacraments
Both
Anglicans and Puritans agreed on the basic nature of the sacraments as means of
grace. They denied the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Zwinglian view of baptism
and the Lord’s Supper. However, there was a noticeable difference in emphasis
between the two groups. Anglicans saw the sacraments as primary channels of the
knowledge and grace of God, but Puritans elevated preaching to this position.
“In other words, for the Anglican the sacramental was the primary mode of
Christ’s presence, but for the Puritan the primary mode of Christ’s presence
was kerygmatic.”[6]
[1]
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970), 40. I am indebted to Davies’
monumental study for the main structure of this post.
[2] John
Brown, The English Puritans (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1910). [Available
online at http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/brown/ brown_englishpuritan.html]
[3] The Marrow of Theology as cited by
Davies, Theology and Worship in England,
52.
[4] The Golden Chain, reprint ed. (np:
Puritan Reprints, 2010), 23.
[5] Worship and Theology in England, 56.
No comments:
Post a Comment