If Reformed Needs To Be Distinguished from Puritan, Why Not Presbyterian?

Published on by D. G. Hart

Some historians of seventeenth-century British Protestantism are dismissive of attempts to distinguish between Puritans and Presbyterians. Part of the problem, of course, involves definitions and categories. When it comes to politics, differences between Presbyterians and Puritans do not become clear until the 1650s with the regime of Oliver Cromwell since Puritans in Parliament joined forces with Presbyterians to do battle with the Stuart monarchy partly on the basis of the Solemn League and Covenant. When it comes to religion, Puritans and Presbyterians shared an intense and introspective piety that again makes differentiating them seemingly pointless.

I was surprised to read, then, in his treatment of John Owen Carl Trueman’s distinction between Puritan and Reformed. On the one hand, he argues that Puritan, at least with reference to Owen, is an unhelpful category.

First, . . . there is little consensus on exactly what constitutes a Puritan, let alone the reification of that elusive essence in the phenomenon known as Puritanism. Second, whatever else Puritanism is, it is fairly minimalist in terms of theological content – if John Milton, the quasi-Arian counts as a Puritan, for example, we can scarcely include even that most basic of Christian distinctives, the doctrine of the Trinity, in our definition. Third, Puritanism has, on the whole, far too parochial a range to allow us to see the full context of Owen’s thinking. . . . Thus, the use of a category like “Puritanism,” which brings with it all manner of narrowly parochial connotations, really needs to be deployed very carefully and in very specific contexts if it is to be at all helpful in our understanding of [Owen’s] thought.

The category that Trueman prefers to apply to Owen is Reformed Orthodoxy since it “is at once both more easily defined and less limiting that the category of Puritanism.” By Reformed Orthodoxy Trueman means:

. . . the tradition of Protestant thought which found its creedal expression on the continent in such documents, as, among others, the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism and the Canons of Dort, and in Britain in the Westminster Assembly’s Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms. Historically speaking, the immediate roots of this tradition are to be found in the work of Reformers such as Huldrych Zwingli, Johannes Oecolampadius, Martin Bucer and, a generation later, such men as John Calvin, Heinrich Bullinger, Peter Martyr and Pierre Viret. (Trueman, John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man, pp. 6-7)

This is helpful, but it does raise a couple questions. First, since the Parliament that called the Westminster Assembly was dominated by Puritans, is it so easy to distinguish the Puritanism of Parliament from the Reformed orthodoxy of the Westminster Assembly, especially since Puritans were not in short supply at the Assembly?

The other questions concerns the original oldlife effort to distinguish Presbyterianism from Puritanism. If Presbyterians adopted the Westminster Standards as their church’s confession, then that would appear, following Trueman, to make them not Puritan but part of Reformed Orthodoxy. In which case, if Puritanism lacks substantial theological content and is not synonymous with the work of the Westminster Assembly, is distinguishing Presbyterianism from Puritanism really so peculiar?

9 thoughts on “If Reformed Needs To Be Distinguished from Puritan, Why Not Presbyterian?”

  3. What would R. Scott Clark say on Trueman’s distinction? (I know he reads your blog)!

    Like

  5. Thank you for your attempt at precision and clarity, Dr. Hart. As an “outsider,” my interest is more historical than theological.

    If “Puritanism” has a “minimal theological content” [and I take that to mean not terribly different from the whole of Reformed theology], then it appears to me that its distinguishing feature is in how to deal with this world, whether socially or politically [socio-politically?]. Charles II, Cromwell, settling in New England, whathaveyou.

    Further, since Puritanism didn’t survive the 18th century [to my knowledge], it seems to be an historical artifact more than an actual theological concern. Further, Congregationalism, so socio-politically dominant in Founding-era New England, is not synonymous with “Presbyterian.”

    BTW, in attempting to describe the religious landscape of the Founding era, I’ve taken to the blanket term “Reformed theology” rather than “Calvinism,” which tends to send the general reader back to only Jean Calvin rather than the entire Reformed tradition [Beza, Peter Martyr, et al.].

    This “outsider” is more than a little confused, and I can’t quite read your chart. Any clarifications greatly appreciated. I will attempt to faithfully translate for the “outsider” public this “inside baseball.”

    [Liked your reference to Ryan Howard in another post, DGH. As a Philadelphian in Los Angeles, I can surely attest it’s easier to change one’s church than his baseball team. Some things are clearly beyond the purview of mere reason.]

    I notice our respective blogs have been enjoying an overlap lately. Cool.

    Best,
    TVD

    Like

  6. Puritan is the generic or general category. The two main species that fit under this category are Presbyterians and Independents. Presbyterians were known for their covenantally-inspired intolerance, while Independents (Cromwell et al.) were known for their tolerance. Owen and Milton were on the side of the Independents.

    ‘[Owen’s] tendency to break away from Presbyterianism to the more tolerant Independent or Congregational system is plainly seen. Like John Milton, he saw little to choose between “new presbyter” and “old priest,” and disliked a rigid and arbitrary polity by whatever name it was called.’ (Wikipedia on John Owen.)

    Vern

    Like

  7. Thx for your reply, Mr. Cristler. I never heard of this Machen fellow until a week ago. Apparently I’ve stumbled onto an interesting pocket of American Christianity.

    Ran across HL Mencken’s obituary for Machen. Again, of great interest. Machen won his respect, unlike WJ Bryan.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.