18 Puritanism ◈

For the purposes of the present study, Puritanism is taken to be the English manifestation or embodiment, especially during the reigns of Elizabeth I , James I and Charles I , of a Reformed theology which laid particular emphasis upon both the experimental basis of faith and the divine sovereignty in election – in other words, an ‘ experimental predestinarianism’ . 2 The close connections between English Puritans and Continental Reformed theology is well known; nevertheless, the English context appears to have given rise to a specific implementation of the Reformed theological vision with an emphasis on pastoral practice and the correlation of theology and human experience. This aspect of Puritanism led earlier scholars to treat it as a form of Pietism, 3 which fails to appreciate the quite different focus and agendas of the two movements. One can certainly speak of a Puritan writer such as William Perkins having a concern for the development of an authentic piety in his ‘ religion of the heart’ 4 – but this must not be allowed to imply any theological alignment with those formally known as ‘ Pietists’ , whose experiential theology often led them to react against orthodox theological formulations.

Although English Puritanism never quite recovered from the failure of the Commonwealth and the restoration of the monarchy under Charles II , it remained a significant presence in England during the 1660s and 1670s. Richard Baxter remarked that half of London’ s population attended nonconformist services on Sundays in the late 1660s. 5 While Puritanism was a significant force in England in the late sixteenth century and throughout the seventeenth, many would argue that it would have its greatest impact in North America. The tension between Anglicanism and Puritanism led to an exodus of pilgrim fathers from England to the American colonies, where it achieved a substantial presence and social influence in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, developing its own distinct ecclesial practices. Whereas the ‘ evangelical revival’ in England largely arose out of the Pietist tradition, Puritan preachers such as Jonathan Edwards played a significant role in the ‘ Great Awakening’ in North American around the same time. 6

One of the most important features of Puritan theologies of justification is that they are generally framed by a covenantal or federal foundation, based on the ideas of the Heidelberg Reformed theologians Zacharias Ursinus and Kaspar Olevianus . The introduction of the covenant concept into the English church appears to have been largely due to the influence of Heinrich Bullinger , whose Decades were published in English translation in 1577, and subsequently commended by Archbishop Whitgift. In the same year, John Knewstub delivered a series of lectures in London, in which he expounded the soteriological benefits of the ‘ league’ between God and humans, while at the same time laying the foundations for a ‘ national covenant’ between God and the people of England. 7

The first clear statement of the distinctive notion of the double covenant may be found in Dudley Fenner ’ s highly influential Theologia sacra (1585) but passed into general circulation through William Perkins’ s Armilla aurea (1590). 8 Although Perkins’ s theology is essentially Bezan, his piety is overwhelmingly Puritan, demonstrating the intense concern with casuistry and personal election so characteristic of Cambridge Puritanism at the time. The Armilla , based largely upon Beza’ s Summa totius theologiae , did much to promote the Bezan doctrines of election and limited atonement in the period before the Synod of Dort , and its perhaps most famous feature – the ‘ chart of salvation’ , resembling an early map of the London Underground – permitted those who found abstract theologising difficult to follow the course of their election along well-established Bezan imaginative paths with the minimum of effort. 9 Perkins declared that the outward means of election is the covenant, which is God’ s 10

Like many Reformed theologians of this period, Perkins establishes a firm theological connection between the motifs of the covenant of grace and union with Christ, seeing this as the proper context for an understanding of the doctrine of justification. 12 This is set out with particular clarity in Perkins’ s Exposition of the Apostles’ Creed (1595): 13

In general, the English Puritans may be regarded as following Reformed orthodoxy in their teaching on justification, particularly in relation to the doctrines of election and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. The strongly anti-Arminian character of English Puritanism is best illustrated from the writings of John Owen ’ s first work, A Display of Arminianism , which reduced the Arminian teaching to two points: first, the precise object of Christ’ s death; second, the efficacy and end of his death. The controversy was thus defined in terms of the identity of those on whose behalf Christ died, and what he merited or otherwise obtained on their behalf. 15

Both these points were developed at greater length in Salus electorum, sanguis Jesu (1647). Although Owen here displays the usual Puritan respect for Scripture, it is significant that this work is essentially a logical analysis of the Arminian doctrine of universal redemption, demonstrating its fundamental incoherence. Owen argues that the Arminian proposition ‘ Christ died for all people’ contains within itself the further proposition ‘ Christ died for nobody’ , in that no people are actually and effectively saved by his death. For Owen, it is beyond dispute that all people are not saved; therefore, if Christ died to save all people, he has failed in his mission – which is unthinkable. 16 For Owen, the Arminians subscribe to a doctrine of conditional redemption, so that God may be said to have given Christ to obtain peace, reconciliation and forgiveness of sins for all people, ‘ provided that they do believe’ . The Arminians thus treat the ‘ blood of Christ’ 17

Owen’ s treatment of the doctrine of justification is, like Perkins ’ s, framed by the firm understanding of the central place of the believer’ s union with Christ within the ordo salutis 19 – a Latin term which was increasingly displaced within Puritan devotional works by the English phrase ‘ a golden chain’ . For Owen, the believer’ s union with Christ functions as the cause of all other graces – such as our adoption, justification and sanctification. For Owen , as for most Puritan writers of this age, justification was understood in a declarative manner, along the lines of the statement of the Westminster Confession : 20

A similar teaching to Baxter’ s may be found in John Goodwin ’ s Imputatio fidei and George Walker’ s Defence , although these two writers differed on the grounds on which human faith could be treated as righteousness; for Walker, the faith of humans is reckoned as righteousness only because it apprehends Christ as its object, 24 whereas Goodwin argued that the remission of sin implied that the sinner was ‘ compleately and perfectly righteous’ , 25 and thus did not require the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. In many respects, the disagreements over the formal cause of justification within seventeenth-century Puritanism parallel those within Caroline Anglicanism, noted in the previous chapter . Nevertheless, it is clear that the most favoured view was that adopted by John Owen and others – that the formal cause of justification was none other than the imputed righteousness of Christ, 26 thus firmly aligning the English movement with Continental Reformed orthodoxy on this point.

But what of Puritanism in North America? Might the diverging political and social contexts of the American colonies lead Puritan preachers to adapt classic approaches to justification to accommodate these new situations? In 1620, the great Puritan theologian John Robinson preached a sermon to those about to leave for the New World aboard the Mayflower , depicting the pilgrims as spiritual and theological pioneers, exploring the new world of the Americas on the one hand, and the new insights they would find in the Bible as they sought to plant the kingdom of God there. ‘ I am verily persuaded the Lord hath more truth yet to break forth out of His Holy Word.’

In 1633, the Griffin set sail from Holland, bringing two refugees from Laudian England to the American colonies: Thomas Hooker and John Cotton . Both were to prove of considerable significance in the establishment of Puritanism in New England. Hooker founded the colony of Connecticut; Cotton was widely regarded as the leading pastor and theologian of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. It was not, however, merely English Puritanism, but also the tensions within English Puritanism, which sailed with the Griffin to America, there to flare up once more with renewed vigour. Of particular significance was the issue of ‘ preparationism’ , to which we now turn.

During his period as a preacher in the Surrey parish of Esher, Hooker was called to counsel one Mrs Joan Drake, who was convinced that she was beyond salvation. Although we have no record of Hooker’ s advice to her – which succeeded where that of others had failed – it is probable that it is incorporated into the 1629 sermon Poor Doubting Christian drawne unto Christ . 27 In this sermon, Hooker rejected the experimental basis of assurance: 28 ‘ A man’ s faith may be somewhat strong, when his feeling is nothing at all. David was justified and sanctified, and yet wanted this joy; and so Job rested upon God, when he had but little feeling … Therefore away with your feeling, and go to the promise.’ Having rejected experience as the foundation and criterion of assurance, Hooker substituted the process of preparation in its place. It is within the natural powers of humans to be sufficiently contrite to permit God to justify them: ‘ when the heart is fitted and prepared, the Lord Jesus comes immediately into it’ . 29 The absence of Christian experience is therefore of secondary importance in relation to the matter of assurance; developing an argument which parallels the federal theology of the via moderna , particularly the idea that God does not deny grace to those who do their best, Hooker argues that, once humans have satisfied the minimum precondition for justification, they may rely upon God’ s faithfulness to his promises of mercy to ensure their subsequent justification and assurance. The human preparation for justification (the ‘ fitting of the sinner for his being in Christ’ ), in which the heart is ‘ fitted and prepared for Christ’ , thus constitutes the grounds of assurance.

A similar understanding of the relation of the preparation of humans for grace and their assurance of the same may be found in the early writings of John Cotton . In an early discussion of Revelation 3:20, he argued that conversion consists of an act of God, knocking at the door of the human heart, followed by an act of humanity, opening the door in order that God may enter. 30 Once humans have performed this necessary act, they may rest assured that God will do the rest – which he, and only he, may do. In an intriguing exposition of Isaiah 4:3– 4, he declares: ‘ if we smooth the way for him, then he will come into our hearts’ .

Before his departure from England, however, Cotton’ s theology appears to have undergone a significant alteration. Prior to this point, Cotton had assumed that humans were naturally capable of preparing themselves for justification. But what if human depravity was such that they could not prepare themselves? 31 In a development which parallels that of Luther over the period 1513– 16, Cotton appears to have arrived at the insight that there is no saving preparation for grace prior to union with Christ; Christ is offered in a promise of free grace without any previous gracious qualification stipulated. In other words, humans cannot turn to God of their own volition; they require God to take hold of them. Christ is given to the sinner upon the basis of an absolute, rather than a conditional, promise. As a result, Cotton makes faith itself the basis of the assurance of humans, rather than preparation or sanctification. Cotton’ s rejection of sanctification as the basis of assurance was founded upon his conviction that this was to revert to the covenant of works from the covenant of grace.

The later seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries saw New England Puritanism in decline. The emphasis upon human impotence in the face of the divine omnipotence, a cornerstone of mainstream Puritan thought, seemed now to induce religious paralysis rather than renewal. As a consequence, subsequent generations of New Englanders were largely unconverted, obliging the churches to introduce the ‘ Half-Way Covenant ’ , by which baptised persons of sound moral character would be treated as de facto church members, save in certain respects. The emphasis on the ‘ means of grace’ – apparently peculiar to New England – permitted pastors to admit the unregenerate to church services on the basis of the principle that the public reading of the Bible, the preaching of the Word (and, in the Stoddardean system, the attending of the Lord’ s Supper) were means by which divine grace could be bestowed upon humanity. 32

This situation was radically altered through the ‘ Great Awakening’ , particularly associated with Jonathan Edwards . In 1734, Edwards preached a series of sermons on the theme of ‘ justification by faith’ . Although these sermons contained nothing which could be described as radical innovations, the earnestness with which they were preached appears to have proved decisive in achieving their astonishing and celebrated effects. 33 The intense emphasis placed by Edwards and others upon the need for spiritual rebirth was such that it became the criterion of church membership, thus ensuring the demise of the Half-Way Covenant. 34

Edwards’ s discussion of the covenant of grace parallels that of Reformed orthodoxy; God has made a covenant of redemption with Christ from all eternity, by which humanity would be redeemed, and the covenant of grace is the temporal manifestation of this eternal covenant. 35 Just as the imputation of the sin of Adam to his posterity is the consequence of his being the federal representative of all humankind in the covenant of works, so the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to the elect is the consequence of his being their federal representative in the covenant of redemption, actualised in the covenant of grace.

The conceptual richness of Edwards’ s account of justification makes it difficult to categorise, as this runs the risk of shoehorning his ideas into other people’ s theological moulds. What may be said with confidence is this: Edwards’ s approach to justification is thoroughly and explicitly Trinitarian, 36 focussing on the believer’ s union with Christ and its outworking in life. For Edwards, faith justifies because it unites Christ and the believer. 37 Yet justification is grounded not in human agency or achievement, but in the voluntary achievement of Christ through his obedience, which is imputed to the believer through faith, but not on account of faith. Christ ‘ did honor to the law and authority of God by his acts, as well as the reparation to the honor of the law, by his sufferings’ ; this, Edwards emphatically declares, is ‘ reckoned to the believer’ s account’ . 38 Edwards, however, also recognises an eschatological aspect of justification – the final divine affirmation of the believer’ s standing in the sight of God, on the basis of which entry into the New Jerusalem is secured. Regeneration and the ‘ work of sanctification’ both remain ongoing temporal processes until the declaration of the final ‘ sentence of justification’ . 39

One of the most significant aspects of Edwards’ s theology is its connection with experience, and his emphasis on the importance of religious affections. These themes, together with his clear interest in renewal evident in his ‘ Faithful Narrative’ (1737), suggested to some of his readers that he was really a ‘ Pietist’ – an advocate of the religion of the heart. 40 Yet it is known that the literature of German Pietism found a significant readership on the part of those involved in the Great Awakening, 41 pointing not merely to a transatlantic connection between Pietism and Puritanism , but to a partial convergence of ideas and values. This clearly indicates the need for a more rigorous exploration of the movement known as ‘ Pietism’ , and its views on the doctrine of justification – to which we now turn.