Some say it is nonsense to posit any difference between Puritans and Presbyterians. Others put it more delicately and argue for essential agreement among British Calvinists. The URC pastor, Mike Brown, has given some attention to this subject through the lens of Calvin and Owen on worship. He writes with some surprise that “the likes of Horton Davies and J. I. Packer . . . see a gap between the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (at least) on worship practices. The piece of evidence that stands out is that John Calvin used and advocated a liturgy. John Owen opposed liturgies. To bring the Presbyterians into the debate, John Knox developed a liturgy for the kirk that became part of the early Presbyterian experience.
But Brown is unconvinced. He sees essential agreement:
Where one witnesses obvious discontinuity between the Continental Reformer and the English Puritan is in the use of liturgies. For Calvin, the liturgies he put to use in Strasbourg and Geneva displayed his understanding of a worship service that was spiritual, simple and in complete accordance with what Scripture alone prescribed. On the other hand, Owen clearly reveled great disdain for liturgies. In his Discourse Concerning Liturgies, Owen made many statements that suggest he believed liturgies somehow quenched the Spirit and obscured the simplicity of worship. Understood in its context, however, Owen’s Discourse is a polemic primarily against the imposition of liturgies. While Calvin knew well the difficulties of having a Protestant state make certain impositions upon the order of worship (such as the Genevan city council denying him his request for weekly communion), he never faced the type of situation which Owen and his fellow Nonconformists faced in England during the 1660s. This must be taken into consideration when evaluating any discontinuities between Calvin and Owen and their theologies of worship. Both Calvin and Owen were men of their times. Yet, both of these towering figures in the Reformed tradition firmly and unwaveringly believed that worship must be biblical, spiritual, and simple.
One question that lurks behind assessments like this is whether Puritans like Owen opposed all liturgy all the time, or simply the liturgy coming down from on high in the Church of England. Sure, most state-imposed measures are unwelcome, but Owen seems to go beyond this when he argues that liturgies restrain the free operation of the spirit.
This leads to an additional question, which concerns the way that Puritanism and Presbyterianism played out in the United States. New England was more receptive to revivalism than were the most Scottish segments of the Presbyterian Church (the Old Side and the Old School). This raises the further question, again for some unthinkable, whether Puritanism encouraged enthusiasm and spontaneity in ways that Old World Presbyterians regarded as a threat to confessional subscription and church polity. After all, if you can accept the word of others for creed and church order, why not in the prayers and forms of worship. (And, by the way, the Westminster Standards reveal much more detail on the interiority of Christian devotion — i.e. the ordo salutis — that The Three Forms of Unity or the Scottish Confession of Faith.)
One way to illustrate that these intuitions as more realistic than hypothetical is to remember that Presbyterianism started out in Scotland with liturgies (from Knox) and that arguably the greatest Puritan theologian, John Owen, wrote an essay against liturgy.
It may not prove the point about differences between Puritanism and Presbyterianism. But the different ways that those traditions played out in the United States do make you wonder.
Old Life 
Darryl,
I analyzed this treatise of Owen in Daniel R. Hyde, “For Freedom Christ Has Set Us Free: John Owen’s A Discourse Concerning Liturgies, And Their Imposition,” The Confessional Presbyterian 4 (2008): 29–42.
In “A Discourse,” Owen argues that the freedom won for the Church by Christ is in direct violation to an imposed liturgy. In a word, Owen says several times that he was not against liturgy per se, but the requirement to use a set liturgy.
Since the publication of that article, my reading in Owen for my ThM on The Liturgical Theology of John Owen has led me to see a shift in his thinking. “A Discourse” was written in 1662 just prior to the Act of Uniformity, while his “A Discourse of the Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer,” written and published at the end of his life in 1682 argues against set liturgical prayers as quenching the Spirit.
Anyways, I have more work to do in this area before writing my thesis.
LikeLike
Danny, Since you’re channeling Owen, maybe you can answer a question. Why isn’t a pastor praying on behalf of the congregation an imposition on believers. Whether or not he’s using the words from a book of prayer, reading a prayer he wrote, or even praying extemporaneously, the effect upon the worshiper is the same — a guy is praying for me, using words I would not use. Isn’t that an imposition? And if so, why the objection to a book of prayer (minus the state church business).
LikeLike
“Pure And Undefiled Religion”
“Pure religion and undefiled before G-D The Father is this, to visit the fatherless (those children who know not their Father, HE WHO is The Only True G-D, Father{Creator} of ALL) and widows(those who have not “experienced The Messiah and The Power{Our Father} that raised Him from among the dead”) in their affliction and to keep oneself uncontaminated by the world…….” (James 1:27)
Simply, all other religion is impure and defiled…….
And notice that “pure and undefiled” religion is “oneself(individual)”, a Brother or Sister doing The Will of Our Father, led of The Holy, Set Apart, Spirit…….
Simply, corporate “religion” is pagan and of this wicked world…….
And “Brothers and Sisters” is not “religion”, for what are Brothers and Sisters if not Family? Would not The Family of The Only True G-D, Father(Creator) of ALL, “The Body of The Messiah”, be much closer than a natural, fleshly family?
What is declared to be “religion” today is truly the devil’s playground…….
Simply, Faith will not create a system of religion…….
Hope is there would be those who take heed unto The Call of The Only True G-D to “Come Out of her, MY people”!
For they will “Come Out” of this wicked world(babylon) and it’s systems of religion, and enter into “the Liberty that is glorious for The Children of The Only True G-D”.
And so it is that they will no longer be of those who are destroying the earth(land, air, water, vegetation, creatures)” and perverting that which is Spirit(Light, Truth, Life, Love, Peace, Hope, Faith, Mercy, Grace, Miracles, etc.)…….
Peace, in spite of the dis-ease(no-peace) that is of this world and it’s systems of religion, for “the WHOLE(not just a portion) world is under the control of the evil one” (1John5:19) indeed and Truth…….
Truth is never ending……. ASimpleAndSpiritualLife.Blogspot.Com
LikeLike
Wow . . . Francis. What have you been smoking? Seems like you packed a little more than tobacco into your pipe this afternoon.
LikeLike
Darryl, perhaps the Directory for Publick Worship gives a hint at a particular problem with “imposition” of prayers. I don’t know if this was akin to Owen’s view.
Besides the “anti-Erastian” objection to government ordering the church’s worship… the directory mentions “every minister is herein to apply himself in his prayer, before or after sermon, to those [previously stated] ‘occasions’ [particular to the congregation’s life]: but, for the manner, he is left to his liberty, as God shall direct and enable him in piety and wisdom to discharge his duty.”
In other words, it is required that prayers be made for particular situations in congregational life, but as those situations are so potentially various, the “manner” of those prayers cannot be pre-determined liturgically. To say “these are the limited number of exact prayers to be prayed” would obviously hinder the ministerial duty to apply oneself to pray for actual congregational life.
The preface of the Directory states that the Book of Common Prayer liturgy became a means “to make and increase an idle and unedifying ministry, which contented itself with set forms… without putting forth themselves to exercise the gift of prayer, with which our Lord Jesus Christ pleaseth to furnish all his servants whom he calls to that office.”
In other words, the Directory objects not to written or non-extemporaneous prayer but objects to not exercising the ministerial gift (“charism”) of (composing) prayer addressed to congregational ‘occasions’; an objection to truncating ministerial duty and preventing edification for the wide variety of congregational need.
The Directory says quite a lot about the general manner of required prayer, but says there is more that must be prayed in specific situations than can be stated specifically before the situations arise.
That’s the Presbyterian view anyway.
LikeLike
And that’s okay. We’re equal opportunity smokers at the NTJ.
LikeLike
Why is this the “Presbyterian” view. No Presbyterian Church existed in England at the time of the Assembly. Wouldn’t it be better to look at the directory of a Presbyterian body, such as the PCUSA, PCA, OPC, or PCC?
LikeLike
My understanding is that the Directory was adopted by the Kirk.
Am I wrong?
LikeLike
Hi Darryl,
Well, I am still in the early stages of my ThM thesis, but . . .
It seems for Owen the issues are several. First, Christ has freed the Church and her ministers from a legal and childish worship in the Old Covenant in which there was so much specificity of rites. Second, he has a strong doctrine of what we know as the “regulative principle.” He would say, I suspect, that we are commanded to pray as ministers but not commanded to pray any set prayer at any given time (including the Lord’s Prayer, I might add). Again, this coalesces with #1 above. Third, his view of the work of the Holy Spirit, a la Zechariah 13, Romans 8, and Galatians 3 is all about a spiritual worship as a mark of the New Covenant (cf. John 4). Fourth, he has a strong catholic sense to him as well, noting that we have no set liturgies/prayers from the apostles and that we have evidence from men like Justin that prayer was offered “according to ability.”
Anyways, this is all floating in my head and I pray I can organize it all in a meaningful way in the thesis. I might add that reading and reflecting upon Nonconformist liturgical theology has been fascinating and stretching for me, a proponent of self-consciously liturgical worship in our day of total disregard for form, substance, and the ministry.
LikeLike
Danny, you’re not going charismatic, are you?
Seriously, wouldn’t these arguments against liturgy also work as much against singing psalms? If song is a form of prayer, which I think it is, and if spiritual worship is a mark of the New Covenant, why do you use elements from the Old Covenant and use them as a set element in the order of service?
What I’m hoping for is some moderation here. But Owen sounds radical. I guess that’s reassuring to those who liked the levelling going on under the Lord Protector and his theological advisor, but in today’s topsy-turvy liturgical world that’s a recipe for chaos — actually, even more chaos.
LikeLike
Daryl,
While I agree that Owen can sound a little radical in places (e.g. forbidding the Lord’s Prayer in liturgy), I do think, as I tried to show in that blogpost/paper, that Owen has more contiuity with Calvin than is often recognized. Keeping him in historical context, noting his firm affirmation of the RPW, as well as his desire for spiritual/other-worldliness in worship (a point he makes repeatedly in his Hebrews commentary – see especially his comments on Heb 8) should be kept in mind. I think there is enough about Owen’s theology of worship that anti-liturgy types in Presbyterian circles today can’t legitmately claim Owen for their cause.
Mike
LikeLike
Danny,
Do you EVER speak in public without giving one of your signature shameless plugs?
LikeLike
Er, the smiley face with the sunglasses was intended to be an “8” within and ending parenthesis mark. No, I haven’t been smoking out with Francis.
LikeLike
Mike, I appreciate your efforts on Owen’s behalf. I am worried about the water in California with you and Hyde drinking deeply in 17th century Puritanism. What’s really up with that? But as much as Owen and Calvin agreed on the theory of Reformed worship, don’t we still have to make sense of their practice? And why is it that some of the greatest Owenites refuse even to give a benediction?
LikeLike
Yeah, I’m not down with that at all. It seems that some fans of Owen have taken his theology of heavenly worship to an extreme, e.g. the minister shouldn’t give a benediction because Christ is our priest in the true tabernacle, etc. That’s an unhelpful overreaction IMO. While it is true that we are seated in the heavenlies where true worship is, we are nevertheless ontologically and really here on earth in body and soul. But I am not sure that Owen himself ever practiced that, all his quirkiness aside. Maybe there is an argument for Owen v. the Owenites.
As for all the 17th C stuff, my interest is not Puritanism per se, but in Reformed Orthodoxy and especially the development of covenant theology in that period.
Don’t worry. The liturgy we use at Christ URC is still the same: way too Anglican for a neo-Puritan or closet-charismatic. You should visit sometime.
LikeLike
What can I say, I learned from the best . . . RSC.
LikeLike
Just calm down now, Deej. Even though I was converted under Sister Aimee’s denomination, I stopped drinking that Koolaid a long time ago. It was too watery for my liking!
Anyways, I’m just trying to be a good historian and attempt to write what Owen said. Trying being the key word.
LikeLike
We’re still doing what we’ve been doing since we began in 2000…the reading and preaching takes up 45 minutes, the Sacrament of the Supper follows weekly, before that we read responsively the Ten Commandments, we corporately confess our sins, the minister declares absolution, 90% of the singing is Psalms, we recite the Creed . . .
As I’ve told my congregation before, a year after I was converted I was given Owen’s, “The Death of Death,” and I’ve been a reader of the Prince of Puritans ever since…
LikeLike
Darryl,
As with our previous discussion, I can only concur with you that there is a difference in tone and/or emphasis (not substance) between earlier Reformed confessions and Westminster. Westminster is a Puritan document for and by Puritans; that means a greater balance between exterior and interior religion and entails less sympathy for high liturgy. The question is whether these things are good or bad.
I think they are good, and am happy to be called a Puritan (for the sake of distinction.) I thus serve in a WCF denomination, and hope in my own way to encourage us to act more consistently with our chosen expression of Christianity. One would get the impression that these differences in emphasis are precisely the things that you find problematic. I’m curious, then, why serve in a denomination tied to a Puritan (as opposed to Three Forms of Unity) confession? I don’t mean to be provocative; it just seems that you are subjecting yourself to a certain level of inherent tension.
Bill
LikeLike
Bill, actually there are Puritans and then there are Puritans. American Puritans were revivalists. American Presbyterians offered some of the better critiques of revivalism. So the question for me is the relationship of revivalism to 17th c. Puritanism. I find plenty of room within the bounds of the WCF to avoid introspection and enthusiasm.
LikeLike
Fair enough. Thanks.
LikeLike
Hi Bill,
“There are Puritans and then there are Puritans”, says Darryl. I would add: there are Reformed (3FoU) and there are Pietistic Reformed. So the problem’s the same, Bill, just different.
LikeLike
As a 1662 BCP man and Calvinist Anglican (some of us are still around), a fascinating read. I’ll be in Morning Prayer at 10 AM here and Evening Prayer at 4 PM. Smiling, but happy to read the give and take. Returning to lurking.
LikeLike
Sebastian,
Nice to talk to you again. No doubt there can be developments that are more or less consistent to their church’s confession. My point was just to say that those who share the basic sympathies (and antipathies) of a certain confession are going to have an easier time of it. And it is my impression that Old Light-leaning, high church inclinations would fit just a little easier into Heidelberg, written in the context of attempting to bring German Reformed and Lutherans together, than they do into Westminster, written in the context of purifying the Church of England with all its imposed liturgy and lack of vital piety, etc. I think that Owen’s attitude towards set liturgy (negative) is actually fairly representative of the Westminster divines, and one of Darryl’s points was indeed to say that there is some difference between WCF and TFoU along these lines.
On the other hand, I incidentally fail to see any difference concerning attitudes towards liturgy between 17th Century Puritans and 17th Century Scottish Presbyterians; how could there be when they both adopted the very same Westminster Directory for Publick Worship? Just notice the sort of things that the Anglican Henry Hammond saw as lamentably absent from the Directory in “A View of the New Directory and a Vindication of the Ancient Liturgy of the Church of England”: no prescribed form or liturgy, no uniformity in worship, no people having a part through responses, no division of prayers into several collects or portions, no pronouncement of absolution, no doxology, no use of the ancient creeds, no frequent use of the Lord’s Prayer, no reading of the commandments and associated prayers, no confirmation, and no liturgical calendar. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directory_of_Public_Worship). If antipathy to set liturgy is a crime, then the Scots Presbyterians no less than the English Puritans, along with the Westminster documents that bound them together, were equally guilty.
Anyhow, just an observation.
See you are Douglasville,
Bill
LikeLike
Good point, Sebastian! We might even add that within 3FU-confessing circles, “there are those who are CULTURALLY Reformed, and those who are CONFESSIONALLY Reformed.”
LikeLike
NMike,
As one who inhabits what some might deem a 3TFU-culturally Reformed enclave, I’ll see your taxonomy and raise you one: evangelically Reformed versus confessionally Reformed.
LikeLike
Bill, so maybe the difference is between the 16th and 17th centuries. Scots Presbyterians used them earlier.
LikeLike
I’m sorry, I can’t.
—————————————
signature: cheap topamax
LikeLike
I’m a tyke swimming in the kiddie pool amongst all you adults in the deep water, but here goes:
Can one really be against liturgy? I can’t imagine Owen’s church (or any of ours) having no set order or form, I’ll leave that to you historians. The question of whether one includes the Lord’s Prayer every week, every quarter, or not at all is a secondary concern. Every service has an “order of worship” – the questions are whether the minister knows it, and then the congregants too.
Then too there is the leading of worship – as the designee of God, the minister is in charge of this ordinarily. As you can tell I’m not in favor of “spontaneity” with regards to the form, but certainly there is room within the content, especially of prayer and exposition. A minister can write some or most of what he will say from the pulpit. Perhaps he shouldn’t write all, or write nothing, of what he will say. (Unless he has memorized it.)
If Presbyterians do things “decently and in order,” then the answers to the latter two are yes and yes of course.
LikeLike
I’ll ask the dumb question: Isn’t a humungophonic difference in ecclesiology (Congregationalist v. Presbyterian) a demonstration of a divide? And would that divide not spill over into theology of worship?
(Not being a professional historian, I may be wrong to assume that Puritans were all congregationalist…)
Jeff Cagle
LikeLike
Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding . . .
LikeLike
Which?
LikeLike