Or how Purbyteritans (because it’s silly to distinguish between Presbyterians and Puritans) learned to love the Prayer Book
Archbishiop Laud was of course the Church of England official who opposed Puritanism and sought to enforce high church ways on Protestants in England and Scotland. He was sufficiently scary to prompt Puritans to head for Massachusetts Bay and to lose his head when the Puritans who remained in England achieved victory over the Stuart Monarchy and initiated their topsy-turvy experiment with republicanism.
Laud, thus, stands for the state-church policy of ramming liturgical practices down the throats of low and medium-church pastors. Because he leaned toward Roman Catholicism, he gets no sympathy from oldlife.
But few seem to notice the irony that contemporary low-church Calvinist worship is indelibly stamped with the Prayer Book that Purbyteritans opposed as a breach of liberty of conscience. In view here is the practice of putting the long pastoral prayer in the first half of the worship service, with the sermon taking up the second half, plus a short prayer, hymn, and the benediction (or prayer of blessing for the really low church Calvinists). Hughes Oliphant Old has long contended that this arrangement simply follows the Prayer Book’s order for morning prayers with a sermon tacked on.
It has no inherent defect except that putting the long prayer in the first half of the service, instead of placing it as the pastoral prayer after the sermon, has several disadvantages. One, it departs from the liturgies (dare I use the term?) of most Reformed churches if Peter Wallace’s work is accurate. In other words, most of the Reformers placed the long prayer after the sermon and used it as a vehicle to pray for the congregation in the light of the text just preached.
Another disadvantage is that it lets the congregation speak its longest words to God before he gets to give his lengthiest words to the congregation in the sermon. I don’t know why Christians would need to speak longer before God does, but the logic of the dialogical principle would suggest that God’s longest words should go first.
The final disadvantage is that if the long prayer went after the sermon, then the preacher could apply the points of the sermon to the congregation and larger church in the form of prayer instead of having to end the sermon not with indicatives but imperatives.
This is yet another irony of Purbyteritan fear of liturgy.
Old Life 
I sympathize with you on the issue of having the congregational prayer after the sermon, but what is all this about Presbyterians and Puritans together?
I would think that a “high church” Presbyterian would want to place the emphasis on the discontinuity between the two, no?
Remember, the Presbyterians fought for their King against Cromwell and his usurping, totalitarian tendencies. IF Presbyterianism has been gutted of its “high church” emphasis, blame the Puritans.
LikeLike
Bill, that’s what I thought until I was told by a certain professor (name withheld to protect the sensitive) that it is peculiar to distinguish Puritans from Presbyterian — hence, Purbyteritan.
LikeLike
It is peculiar to distinguish Presbyterians from Puritans. I am surprised that you did. Almost any 17thC scholar of British ecclesiastical history would have called you on that. Of course, you could so work your definitions to make a distinction, but I know of few scholars who would agree with such a distinction.
Cordially,
Bob
LikeLike
On your view, then, and the established historiography to boot, John Owen was a Presbyterian? How peculiar indeed.
LikeLike
You miss my point. All Presbyterians were Puritans, but not all Puritans were Presbyterians. Some were Congregationalists, like John Owen, though I venture to say that his form of Congregationalism is probably quite similar to that which we see in the PCA, for example, which is very “grass roots”.
LikeLike
Now you lost me. Presbyterianism started in Scotland with the 1560 Reformation. Puritanism was in the English church and came a decade or so later (at least), not to say that the anti-vestment Anglicans were the same as the later experimental divinity Puritans. So what am I missing? What sense does it make to say that all Presbyterians were Puritan when Presbyterians existed at a time when Puritanism didn’t.
LikeLike
As you will see above, I am talking about 17thC British ecclesiastical history. If you want to talk 16thC, fine. But I am talking about the British situation in the 17thC and the fact that by then there were Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and moderate-Anglicans who could all fit the bill of “Puritan”.
How exactly would you distinguish between a “Puritan” and a “Presbyterian” in that context I alluded to above?
Puritanism was an attempt to reform the Church of England. Presbyterians were part of that project, along with Congregationalists and moderate Anglicans. To suggest that Puritans were distinct from Presbyterians becomes difficult given that many prominent Puritans were Presbyterians.
LikeLike
Well, then maybe it isn’t as unscholarly as you first suggested to make a distinction between Presbyterianism and Puritanism since none of us is still living in the 17th century and many of us do not live under British rule. And your point raises a question that I already asked and no one seems to answer: does the identification of Puritanism and Presbyterianism owe less to theology and practice and more to politcs? Which would make Puritanism the Manhattan Declaration of 17th-century Britain.
LikeLike
Reformation of the CoE was theological and not simply political, hence the framing of the WCF. I doubt very much the Puritans would have signed the Declaration. They would have written their own “Declaration” that would have made holding hands with the “papists” impossible. If you defined Puritanism then maybe I’d understand your desire for demarcation, but until you do that I simply don’t know how to respond.
LikeLike
This is quite off topic, but I’m not sure where to put it. I just read (more like devoured in a day) your book A Secular Faith and was thoroughly enriched. I’ve also read a few of your other works, and have more on my desk. One question’s been on my mind about the two kingdoms doctrine: why (at least in passing references) are you hostile to Rawlsian liberalism? What, in particular, makes it incompatible, or hostile to two kingdoms theology? This is one among many conversations I’d love to have with you in any case.
LikeLike
Since you know the lit on Puritanism, maybe you should go first with a definition. But part of my concern is the difference between Knox and Owen over prayer books. Presbyterianism was not hostile to it when it started in Scotland. Now, to mention read prayers is to be guilty of not sending your children to Christian schools.
see https://oldlife.org/2009/08/31/presbyterians-and-puritans-apart/
LikeLike
I don’t think a blog is the best place to discuss definitions of Puritanism that go beyond the standard definition (i.e. an attempt to reform the CoE along godly lines). That’s why I would say Puritanism died in 1660. But if Presbyterians are distinct from Puritans, then (pray tell) who are the Puritans? And why?
FWIW, Trueman’s review was pretty spot-on in terms of how most 17thC Puritan scholars would have read your work. But you have an obvious agenda (not necessarily a bad thing), which would perhaps be enhanced if you showed a little more care in your understanding of history. Most readers will not pick up on those short-comings, but some will (i.e. Trueman), and I’d like to think you were thankful that iron could sharpen iron.
LikeLike
Bob, so you’re saying that Presbyterians were Puritans because they were trying to reform the Church of England even when they were in the Church of Scotland, and even when not all Puritans were Presbyterian; Presbyterianism was a wing of English Protestantism. Plus, your definition of Puritanism — reforming the church along godly lines is hardly scholarly since it would apply to Lutheranism. So you keep running between a generic definition and then try to locate it in England.
The agenda, such as it was, is that the Scots or the Scots-Irish planted churches or took Presbyterianism to other parts of the world. The Puritans did not. That’s not to say that Presbyterians from Scotland weren’t at the WEstminster Assembly or that Presbyterians didn’t read Puritan authors. But if you look for the roots of American Presbyterianism, you don’t look to England. You look North. And just to complete the circle, every major conflict in American Presbyterianism was between English/Congregationalist-friendly Presbyterians and Presbyterians of Scottish or Scotch-Irish descent.
so on both sides of the 17th century Presbyterians and Puritans have distinct identities. What do the scholars of 17th century English church history say to that?
LikeLike
Most of the divines at Westminster were Presbyterians, which I’m sure you know. But, in case you don’t, you only need to look at the example of John Arrowsmith, an English Presbyterian who is also a Puritan because of his involvement in reforming the church of England. Thomas Manton did not attend the Assembly, but he was most certainly an English Presbyterian and therefore Puritan! Same for the ardent Presbyterian, Thomas Edwards. Rutherford and Manton, for example, were from different countries, but they were both Presbyterians and Puritans; they both shared the same emphases on experimental piety. You should read the ground-breaking work of Polly Ha who looks at English Presbyterianism from 1590-1640.
So, to say that “on both sides of the 17th century Presbyterians and Puritans have distinct identities” is to make a contention that simply will not hold up to the historical evidence. As I have said, most of the Puritans were Presbyterian. It’s actually remarkable that the Congregationalists (“Independent” is an unhelpful term, but I would rather not get into why) yielded so much influence.
Of course, Carl Trueman has noted this in his review. So, maybe you can give me some concrete examples of the differences between the Puritans and Presbyterians. And, as I have asked before, a definition of Puritanism would help. I just don’t know how you define Puritans. I have spoken of “reforming the church of England along godly lines”, something English Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and moderate “Anglicans” were involved in, though they disagreed (sometimes vehemently) on how this looked. But, that’s Puritanism, and Puritanism died in 1660 because attempts to reform the CoE effectively ended. So, Puritanism isn’t really helpful as a theological category, but it is helpful as a category that describes the desire to reform the church of England in the 17thC. Incidentally, Protestant Nonconformity better describes the situation after 1660.
LikeLike
Bob, can you tell me how it is possible to be a Presbyterian and not belong to a presbytery? And since you also say that Anglicans, Independents, and “Presbyterians” all wanted to reform the CofE along godly lines, why do you not include all of them as Puritan?
I’ve given this example before. John Knox had a book of Common Prayer. Owen opposed all forms and liturgies. Both are Presbyterian?
LikeLike
I do include Anglicans, Congregationalists (again, scholars are shying away from using “Independent” anymore), and Presbyterians as Puritans. That has been my point; all wanted further reform of the Elizabethan church. Some had Presbyterian convictions, and others didn’t. Some in the English Church were very “Scottish” and some weren’t. But all who wanted reform were Puritans, whether Arminian (John Goodwin) or Calvinistic (Thomas Goodwin).
Were John Arrowsmith, Thomas Manton, and Thomas Edwards Presbyterians? Thomas Edwards writes one of the most vigorous defenses of Presbyterianism, but he’s not a Presbyterian because he isn’t technically in a Presbytery?
So, using a book of Common Prayer and not using a book of Common Prayer is what separates Presbyterians from Puritans? That would indeed be a fascinating PhD thesis, though I should think the student would want to do it at a Japanese University, and not an English one!
PS, you still aren’t giving me a definition of what constitutes someone as a Puritan. I think you should since a major part of your argument (esp. in your book) has to do with this supposed distinction between Presbyterians and Puritans! I have my suspicions why you wont give me a definition, but (as a good Presbyterian myself) I’d rather rely on the objective than the subjective!!!
LikeLike
Bob, it looks like one difference between Puritans and Presbyterians is that the former were broad and tolerant, unlike the latter. I mean, you include Protestants of various stripes under the Puritan label. Hey, wait a minute. I thought Puritans were after purity. So what gives with the breadth?
I am being purposefully provocative but it is curious to me that you want to give credit to Puritanism for Presbyterianism when in fact the Puritans did not produce a Presbyterian church — until after the Restoration.
So it seems to me the bigger definition in need of expression is Presbyterianism, particularly, where Presbyterianism came from — especially the U.S. variety. Some good and godly English folks may have wanted Presbyterian polity but that didn’t put them in a Presbyterian communion. And when you look for the origins of American Presbyterianism, it is in the Scots and Scotch-Irish who came to the British colonies, not from the Puritan cousins of the English who wound up in Massachusetts Bay. And when you couple this historical development with the further complication that New England was a veritable pain in the neck to Old Side and Old School Presbyterians, you begin to think that Puritanism wasn’t to helpful for Presbyterianism.
But then your response to be — well, everyone knows that Presbyterians were Puritan. That’s a pretty Anglo-centric view of the world and church history.
If I have an agenda it is trying to trace the origins of Presbyterianism and no book I’ve read has mentioned Thomas Manton or Thomas Edwards. Jonathan Edwards is a different matter.
LikeLike