14: The Puritans

I’ll begin this section with a question: Who was the last Roman Catholic English monarch?

If you said Henry VIII or Queen Mary I, that’s not actually true. We find out who it was and why in this section.

JAMES I

Elizabeth was succeeded by James VI of Scotland who became James I of England. He was descended from Henry VIII’s sister, Margaret who was the mother of Mary Stewart. James was the son of Mary Stuart (Mary Queen of Scotts, who butted heads with John Knox) so Elizabeth was the last of the Tudor monarchs. The Tudors had ruled England for the entire 15th Century and of the five Tudor monarchs, three of them had been Henry VIII’s children – interesting given he was so driven to have an heir. So Henry cast a long shadow over both history and the church.

Just as Henry’s clash with the Roman Catholic Church of his day set the stage for the English Reformation, James’ clash with the Puritans would set the stage for the English Civil War. That war, as we’ll see, was fought over religious convictions as much as anything else and so has great implications for the history of the church, in the English-speaking world.

So who were the Puritans?

What comes to mind when you hear the word “Puritan?”

H.L. Mencken an early 20th Century American journalist famous for his wit said, “Puritanism is the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy.”

And certainly to call someone “puritanical” today is not a compliment.

But is that who they were? A bunch of killjoys who were dour and unhappy and wanted everyone else to be as well?

Not at all. They have been, as is often the case with serious, faithful Christians, mischaracterized.

The reason they were called “puritans” is that their goal was to purify the English church – and by that they meant moving it toward a more biblical model.

They were not at all “puritanical” in the sense we use that word. Timothy Paul Jones says:

“When the puritans worshipped they did wear dull-colored clothing – but not to be gloomy. They wanted to turn their thoughts away from one another and toward God. Otherwise, they wore both vivid and plain colors. Puritans enjoyed beer and complained bitterly when it ran out. They expected spouses to maintain mutually satisfying sexual relations. They swam and skated, hunted and bowled. They expressed their faith through lively relationships with one another and with God.”[i]

In short, they were committed Christians.

A lot of the misconceptions about puritans come from popular literature written long after their era. Books like Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “The Scarlet Letter” (1850) or Arthur Miller’s play “The Crucible” (1953) about the Salem Witch Trials.

But, those things in popular culture that they felt went against the teaching of scripture, they unapologetically opposed – which is what all Christians should do, correct? In their day that was things like the theater which they felt portrayed immorality. They were also opposed to ostentatious displays of wealth, many of which were seen in churches and among officials of the Church of England.

Their goal was to see the Church of England remodeled along the lines of the Presbyterian Church in Scotland. They felt the trappings of the church, the offices of the church (bishops & priests), the worship liturgy, etc. still smacked too much of Roman Catholicism and could not be supported by the plain teaching of the Bible.

Since James came from Scotland, they were initially optimistic when he came to the throne. James, however, had no intention of exporting Presbyterianism to England. He saw himself as an absolute ruler by divine right and saw the Church of England as instrumental in securing that role for himself and the Presbyterianism of Scotland, which was much more egalitarian and democratic in its governance, as an impediment to it. He said a Scottish Presbytery “agrees with monarchy as well as God and the Devil.” [ii]

So the Puritan hopes were quickly dashed. In 1604, just a year into his reign, a conference was held at Hampton Court. There the English Puritans presented to the new king their desires for the church in England. He refused every one of them, and rudely. When the conference broke up he threatened to “drive them (the Puritans) out of this land – or worse.” [iii]

There was, however, one request of the Puritans that he did agree to.

Does anyone know what that was?

He agreed to commission a new translation of the English Bible which was published in 1611 and that we call The King James Bible which has had an enormous influence on Western Culture. One of the reasons he agreed to this is that he hated the Geneva Bible being used by the Puritans. That translation had study notes for most of the verses and, among other things, those notes did not always agree with James’ view of how the church and government should relate to one another so the KJB was published without notes.

Another group that stood between James and his desire to rule as an absolute monarch was the English Parliament. He got off on the wrong foot with them as much as he had with the Puritans. In a speech before the House of Commons James said of them:

“I am surprised that my ancestors ever permitted such an institution to come into existence. I am a stranger, and found it here when I arrived, so that I am obliged to put up with what I cannot get rid of!”

Among the nations of Europe during this era, England was the most progressive with regard to rule of law. Limiting the power of the King and subjecting him to the same laws as everyone else, in other words, the law was above the king and not vice versa, went back to 1215 and the Magna Carta. In the Magna Carta, the English nobles limited King John’s power in several ways, among them, his ability to raise taxes without the consent of the barons. By the time of James I’s reign, the king could not raise either an army or new taxes without the consent of parliament. This was unheard of in places like France where the Bourbons ruled with absolute authority. And that’s who, by the way, James admired and wanted to emulate.

One thing the king could do was to both call and dismiss parliament. Unable to get rid of them, James dismissed parliament in 1611 and ruled England, the way he wanted to, by himself, for ten years. This tended to make those advocating church reform and those in favor of parliamentary rule de facto allies against the king and even the monarchy in general.

When James needed money, rather than go to parliament to ask for it, he did things like create and sell new royal titles which also made him unpopular with the historical nobility. He missed How to Win Friends and Influence People.

Finally, in 1621, he reconvened parliament. The Thirty Years War had broken out on the continent (we’ll talk about more in a minute) and James thought he could get parliament to grant him funds if he agreed to use part of them in defense of German Protestants in that conflict. Parliament, however, approved only part of the funds and then demanded that the king address their grievances before giving him any more. James again dissolved parliament, calling it only once more briefly before he died in 1624.

Baptists & Pilgrims

I want to take a side bar here to discuss a couple of other things going on at this time that had a huge impact on the history of the church.

After the conference at Hampton Court early in James’s reign there were two responses by the Puritans. Some decided to remain in England and seek change. Others decided they must leave England and seek religious freedom elsewhere.

In 1607, a group of these “separatists” fled to Holland.

There, they settled into two different congregations. One group eventually left Holland for the New World. We know them as the Pilgrims.

The other group became convinced that only those who’ve professed faith in Christ should be baptized. They, of course, became known as Baptists. This group, under the leadership of John Smyth and Thomas Helwys, eventually returned to London where they founded England’s first Baptist church near London. [iv]

CHARLES I & THE ENGLISH CIVIL WAR

When James died, his son Charles came to the throne. Much like Solomon’s son Rehoboam he refused to alter is father’s policy towards parliament and, if anything, was more difficult to deal with.

There were also issues with the Puritans because Charles had married Henrietta, the sister of King Louis XIII of France and a devout Catholic. Henrietta refused to convert after the marriage and Charles allowed her to practice her faith. So a Roman Catholic was now Queen of England.

Like his father, he would convene Parliament when he needed money, they would refuse to vote on funds until he addressed other grievances and he would then dismiss them. After doing that for the third time he decided in 1629 to rule without them, again, the way his father had tried to do.

Parliament was not recalled again for eleven years.

In 1633, Charles had appointed William Laud Archbishop of Canterbury. Laud was a dedicated Anglican and royalist. As such, he felt the religion of the country should be uniform throughout (uniformly Anglican, of course) and, was, unfortunately, willing to go to almost any lengths to achieve that.

Laud treated the Puritans harshly, including issuing death warrants for some of them. Unfortunately for Charles, when he gave Laud a free hand in Scotland to force Anglicanism on a bunch of Presbyterians, things got quickly out of hand.

Laud’s efforts to force the Anglican liturgy in Scottish churches resulted in a riot that soon became an outright rebellion against the crown. [v]The story is often told of a lady named Jenny Geddes. When Laud ordered that the Anglican prayer book be read in all Scottish churches, Jenny stood up in the service at St. Giles, Edinburgh, as the dean began to read, lifted up the stool she was sitting on and hurled it at his head shouting “will ye read that book in my ear!” [vi]This started a riot as others began throwing things at the Anglican officials and the church had to be cleared by force.

Another interesting sidebar is that Laud’s persecution of Puritans drove many more of them from England. Bruce Shelley tells us that within ten years of Laud becoming archbishop, twenty towns and churches were established in Massachusetts Bay Colony, some 16,000 people.[vii] So once again, persecution leads to an expansion of the church.

In response to Laud’s efforts to basically take over the Scottish Church, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland voted to limit the power of bishops in Scotland. When the king ordered the assembly dissolved, they refused to do so. They then voted to eliminate the episcopacy in Scotland completely (all of the priests and bishops in the Anglican Church) and reorganize the Scottish church on a Presbyterian basis. [viii]

This was an act of rebellion. But to wage war the king needed two things, money and soldiers, neither of which he had authority to call up without parliament. Not being keen on doing that, he reached out to Irish Catholics for military help against the Scots. All this did was galvanize Scottish Calvinists and English Puritans against him.[ix]

So, in desperation, Charles convened Parliament in 1640.

But, it quickly became clear that Parliament had more sympathy for the rebels than for the king so Charles dissolved them again after only three weeks. This is known as the “Short Parliament.”

After seeing their support in the English Parliament, the Scots invaded and Charles’ army fled. Charles was again forced to convene Parliament in May to deal with the ever-increasing threat. This began the “Long Parliament,” which is a significant even in English history. The Long Parliament stayed in session from May 1640 until sometime in 1660. It was during this period that the Westminster Assembly met, the monarchy was dissolved, Charles I was executed, the English Civil war took place England became briefly a republic and finally the monarchy was restored.

Why did this one last a long time when the others had been dismissed so quickly by Charles and his father James?

In 1641 they passed a law saying the king could not dissolve parliament without parliament’s consent. Charles, because of his precarious position at the time, did not push back.

THE EXECUTION OF CHARLES I

There is a third Parliament historians talk about during this time, the “Rump Parliament.” As it’s name implies, it was not the full parliament but a subset. As often happens in revolutions, there were disagreements among the victors. The army was made up mostly of “independents,” like Baptists, among them John Bunyan who would later write “Pilgrim’s Progress.” They were as unwilling to be dictated to in their worship by Presbyterians as they were by Anglicans.

Parliament, on the other hand was made up mostly of Puritans looking to establish a Presbyterian form of church governance throughout England in the stead of Anglicanism. This was, in fact, the intent of the Westminster Standards, to be the national document governing the church in place of the Thirty-Nine Articles.

When the army defeated the Scots, they then began a purge of parliament. Some 45 ministers were arrested and many more were prevented from attending the sessions. This left only a subset (estimates are 50% of the original size) of the entire body, a “Rump Parliament.” [x]

This parliament brought charges against Charles I for high treason and found him guilty. He was executed on January 30, 1649. In February the Rump Parliament abolished the monarchy and in March the House of Lords was abolished.

In May, England was declared a commonwealth or what we would call a republic.

OLIVER CROMWELL

It’s at this point we need to talk about Oliver Cromwell, the Lord Protector of England.

Cromwell was a colonel in the New Model Army as they were known and by all accounts a military genius. His regiment known as “Ironsides” was never defeated in battle.[xi]

It was Cromwell’s New Model Army that had defeated the king’s army and forced Charles to surrender in 1646. Do you remember that I mentioned that the army ended up having a bit of a falling out with parliament? Well, after his surrender and capture, Charles began secret negotiations with the Scots, which caused a split in parliament and much resentment of him in the ranks of the army. As a result, the war resumed briefly in 1648. It was when the New Model army again defeated the king that they also purged parliament resulting in the “Rump Parliament.”

The distrust of parliament by the army continued even after the king was executed and England was declared a commonwealth. In 1653 the army overthrew the commonwealth and set up what they called a Protectorate with Cromwell as Lord Protector – essentially a military dictator.

As Lord Protector, Cromwell set out to reform the church but took a more tolerant approach than had the Anglicans before him or even than the Presbyterians might have wanted. He tried to develop a system where Presbyterians, Baptists (Independents like himself) Quakers and even moderate Anglicans could all get along and worship as they pleased.

He also sought to reform the culture and the government putting in place laws against horse races, cock fights, the theater, etc. and legislating how the Lord’s Day was to be observed.[xii]He had in mind creating a Christian commonwealth.

Cromwell was offered the crown but, similar to George Washington in our own history, he refused it, believing a republic was a better form of government.

Unfortunately, he failed at creating a stable republican form of government in England so when he died, even though he named his son Richard as his successor, the protectorate did not last. Richard Cromwell resigned after less than a year as Lord Protector.

THE MONARCHY RESTORED

This threw the government of England into turmoil. As often happens when you try something new and it doesn’t work, you go back to what you know. To make a long story short, Parliament asked Charles II to return to England to restore the monarchy. Charles’ return also brought a restoration of Anglicanism, the episcopacy and the Book of Common Prayer.

This era also saw a return of laws against dissidents who wanted to worship outside the structure and liturgy of the Anglican Church. In Scotland the persecution of these dissidents was especially severe because the Scots were especially insistent on not being Anglicans. So in Scotland, riots and continued revolt against forced Anglicanism led to much bloodshed on both sides, including the murder of Archbishop James Sharp, the highest church official in Scotland. Sharp had been a covenanter at one time but converted back to Anglicanism after the Restoration. Scottish Presbyterians saw him as a traitor. He was waylaid on his way to St. Andrews church by some of the more radical covenanters and stabbed to death with a sword in front of his daughter.

To make matters worse and confirming the worst fears of Presbyterians, and Independents alike, Charles II declared himself a Roman Catholic on his deathbed. This was probably one of those “What have we done?” Moments. It had always been believed by the Puritans that Anglicanism was just Roman Catholicism wearing a mask.

He was succeeded in 1685 by his brother James VII of Scotland who became James II of England. James set out to restore England to Roman Catholicism in earnest. He made it a crime punishable by death to attend non-conformist worship services and began to place Catholics in positions of power in Scotland. [xiii]

So, technically it was not Henry VIII or Mary I who was the last Catholic monarch of England but James II.

Fortunately or unfortunately depending on whose side you were on, James did not last long. After only three years, England rebelled. James’ successor was his sister Mary who was a staunch Protestant. She was married to William of Orange, prince over a region in what is now the Netherlands. As long as Mary was the heir apparent, the English were willing to put up with James knowing he’d be replaced by a Protestant. But, when he had a son, James Francis Edward Stewart, they were unwilling for him to be heir thus renewing a Catholic dynasty in England. They were also concerned about his friendship with the Bourbons of France.

So, in 1688 they invited the Protestant William of Orange and his wife Maryto invade England from the Netherlands and assume the throne. This is called the “Glorious Revolution.” The invasion was successful and William and Mary became co-regents of England, Scotland and Ireland. It was during the reign of William and Mary that religious toleration was restored. Those who refused to become Anglican were tolerated as long as they agreed not to conspire against the crown. In Scotland, Presbyterianism became the official religion and the Westminster Standards it’s rule of order.

It was also during this era that Bunyan’s “Pilgrim’s Progress” became one of the most popular books in the English language

Supporters of James Francis Edward continued to make attempts to restore his line to the throne but were never successful. Those who believed him the legitimate heir were called “Jacobites.” James lived the rest of life in France as a guest of his cousin and ally, Louis XIV.

From William and Mary onward, England was never again in danger of returning to Roman Catholicism.

THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH

As mentioned a bit ago, one of the actions of the “Long Parliament” was to convene the Westminster Assembly. A council of 121 theologians (including 30 lay people, six Scottish commissioners and 9 Scottish elders) was charged in with overseeing “a more perfect reformation of the church.”[xiv]

The original task of the assembly was to revise the Thirty-Nine Articles.

But, when the English parliament allied themselves with their counterparts in Scotland, it was decided to develop a completely new document that was more thorough, more Protestant, and more all encompassing than the Thirty-nine Articles.

The assembly opened on July 1, 1643 with a sermon in Westminster Abbey (which is where they met and from which the name comes). It concluded in March of 1652.

At the end of the assembly they had drafted an extremely thorough summary of Christian doctrine and how it should be applied to all of life as well as a larger and shorter catechism for the instruction of believers in the faith.

The Larger Catechism begins with the famous question:

“What is the chief and highest end of man?”

“Man’s chief and highest end is to glorify God and fully to enjoy Him forever.”

And that is the approach the Westminster Confession takes throughout, that everything is to be done for the glory of God.

It consists of twenty-five chapters covering things like:

· The Holy Scripture

· The Trinity

· God’s providence

· Creation

· The work of Christ

· The state of man

· Christian liberty

· Worship and keeping the Sabbath

· Church and state relations

· Church government

For each of the topics, the assembly was careful to include copious scripture references in support of their conclusions. For some topics you see as many as 40 or 50 passages referenced.

The Larger Catechismis a series of 196 questions and answers, also with many scripture references, that can be used to disciple someone in the truths of the Christian faith.

The Shorter Catechism, as one would imagine, is just a shorter version of the catechism (107 questions). The questions and answers are also shorter, easier to memorize and were originally designed for discipling children.

For example the first question and answer becomes:

“What is the chief end of man?”

“Mans chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.”

The documents never became the official documents of the Church of England as intended due to the restoration of the monarchy after the Civil War. But they did become the official documents of the Scottish church and have influenced, not just Presbyterians, but the Christian church through the ages to a remarkable degree.

This is my personal opinion but it would be difficult to find a more thorough, God-honoring brief summary of the Christian faith than the Westminster Standards even though I would not agree with all of their conclusions.

THE SYNOD OF DORT

Use Robert Godfrey Video.

(27) Five Calvinistic Answers to the Five Errors of Arminianism - YouTube

(27) Saving the Reformation: The Synod of Dort - YouTube

(Either one is good, choose the one you think is best)

THE THIRTY YEARS WAR

We’ll finish up this lesson with a brief discussion of the Thirty Years’ War.

Tensions had existed in Europe between Protestants and Roman Catholics since the Reformation. As we’ve seen, the distinction between church and state as we know it did not exist in this era. A nation was either Roman Catholic or it was Protestant and being one of those in a nation that was officially the other was still difficult in most places at the beginning of the seventeenth century.

Once such disconnect was in the nation of Bohemia (modern day Czech Republic, now known as Czechia). The Hapsburgs who ruled Bohemia were Roman Catholic but there had been a strong Protestant presence in Bohemia since the days of Jan Huss.

In 1618 several Bohemian Protestants met with representatives of the king in the city of Prague. The Protestants wanted to share some grievances with the king (Roman Catholic officials had been closing Protestant chapels). The king’s envoys, however, refused to listen to them.

The Protestants then took matters into their own hands – literally. The meeting was being held in a second story room so they picked up the king’s envoys and threw them out the windows. They survived the fall because they fell into a nice soft heap of horse manure.

This event is known as the “Defenestration of Prague.” Defenestration is from the Latin “De,” down from and “fenestra,” window.

While humorous, the result was not. The king declared war on the Protestants over this insult and the Thirty Years War began.

Timothy Paul Jones says:

“Before the conflict ended, it had enmeshed France, Denmark, and the entire Holy Roman Empire. In the Empire alone, soldiers slaughtered 10 million citizens.”[xv]

The conflict ended in 1648 with an agreement called the Peace of Westphalia.

This is significant for the next phase of history we’ll look at, the Enlightenment because the religious conflicts of these years led people to look for answers outside the church.

[i]Christian History Made Easy, Jones, pp. 126-27 [ii]Church History in Plain Language, Shelley, p. 295 [iii] Ibid [iv] Jones, p. 128 [v] Gonzalez, p. 156 [vi]Sketches from Church History, Houghton, p. 155 [vii] Shelley, p. 297 [viii] Gonzalez, p. 156 [ix] ibid [x]Gonzalez, p. 161 [xi] Shelley, p. 298 [xii] Gonzalez, p. 162 [xiii] Gonzales, p. 163 [xiv]Holcomb, p. 132 [xv]Jones, p. 126