Quote:
Originally Posted by Zadok  Quote:
Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot There were certainly Congregational Puritans, but Presbyterianism was the primary Puritan ecclesiology. .......... | Presbyterian polity may have been the primary one in the Assembly. I think it would be hard to argue that the Assembly was truly representative of the nation as a whole. The Baptists for instance had no representatives at the Assembly and the Independents who were not Baptist only had a hand full of representatives. But even a handful were able to frustrate the Presbyterian objective of establishinig Presbyterian polity as the nationally accepted one and subsequent events demonstrated that it would not have been acceptable to the nation. |
Scotland was always and unquestionably Presbyterian. If we are speaking of only England, there was certainly a diversity of opinions. Especially, in the 1640's and 1650's, it was a chaotic time. But from the early English Reformation onward, especially from the time of Thomas Cartwright, "Puritan" meant
primarily "Presbyterian." I know about Ames and Goodwin, and the rather lengthy list of notable Independents. I am acquainted with the history of the Baptists in England. I know about "modified Presbyterians" and Anglicans who were sympathetic with Presbyterianism. I am also aware of other influences in the Puritan era.
But I would attribute the failure of Presbyterians to hold on to the achievements of Westminster and establish them nationally in England in such a way that it could last, not to ecclesiastical challenges but to the political alignment of Independents with Oliver Cromwell, and the subsequent division of Puritans between Protesters and Resolutioners, followed by the return of the King -- in short, to political influences, rather than Independents in the Assembly thwarting the majority of Presbyterians. The Independents in the Assembly were men of great renown, and they were permitted to speak their mind.
The Grand Debate memorialized the arguments of Independents as well as Presbyterians. The debates over polity before, during and after Westminster, were argued vigorously and amicably by Presbyterians and Independents. The debates over baptism were of another sort. There was a mix of beliefs and contributions to English Protestantism certainly. I don't deny or diminish the influences of others. I simply argue that English Puritanism was primarily Presbyterian, while New England Puritanism was primarily Congregational. And I haven't even delved into Dutch Puritanism (I know many English Independents / Congregationalists found refuge in the Netherlands). Voetius defended Presbyterian polity; and when divines in Zealand sent a list of questions to the Congregationalists of New England concerning church polity in 1644 which led to a response on behalf of New England congregationalists by John Norton, Willem Apollonius wrote a noted defense of Presbyterian polity.
I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of ministers who were ejected from their pulpits in 1662 in England, Scotland and Ireland were Presbyterian, and this is a pretty good indicator of the state of Puritanism / nonconformity in that era.
The demise of Puritanism in England, spiritually speaking, cuts across all brands of church polity, but its rise was attributable in large measure to Presbyterian Puritanism, with many invaluable contributions by the Independents, which are not to be forgotten.
Some further resources I found have helpful in studying this history may be useful for others:
Tai Liu,
Puritan London: A Study of Religion and Society in the City Parishes
John Brown,
The English Puritans
Thomas M'Crie (the Younger),
Annals of English Presbytery
William A. Shaw,
A History of the English Church During the Civil Wars and Under the Commonwealth 1640-1660
A.H. Drysdale,
History of the Presbyterians in England: Their Rise, Decline and Revival:
Quote:
Originally in England the terms "Puritan," "Precisian," "Presbyterian," though not synonomous, were applied to the same ecclesiastical party. (p. 4)
If Puritanism were, as some one has said, the feeling of which Protestantism was the argument, we may add that Presbyterianism was its organized expression.[1] ... Puritanism was not, at its first outbreak, a matter of Church government, or polity. The supreme question related more to the dynamics or inward forces than to the organic or outward forms of spiritual faith and practice. Nevertheless, Presbyterian convictions were in the English Reformation from the beginning, though the question of Church government was not formally raised till about 1570. Within a few years thereafter, the words "Presbytery," "Party of Presbytery," and "Presbyterianism," were getting into use,[2] greatly aided by the prevalence of Presbyterian views among the Reformed Churches on the Continent. It was when the English Puritans found themselves overborne, and their favourite aims and ideas pushed to the wall by Queen Elizabeth's policy, they were compelled to look more narrowly into questions of Church organization and polity. (p. 5)
To speak of Presbyterian London, is to use no exaggerated language. Strange as it may sound in modern ears, it describes exactly what London became under the Long Parliament. From the meeting of the Westminster Assembly in July, 1643, and the public adoption by Parliament of the Solemn League and Covenant in September of that same year, London grew intensely Presbyterian in its sympathies, although Presbyterial worship and order did not come fully into operation over the City and suburbs till August, 1646. All classes seemed under a Presbyterian spell, or frenzy, as the Cavaliers reckoned it. Traditionally Puritan in temper, London struggled for and welcomed the new religious Establishment. Presbyterian Puritanism may have subsisted longer in Lancashire; but in London it achieved its earliest triumph and its highest renown. (p. 304)
|