It is impossible to read the history of modern Britain or the United States without realizing at once that it is simultaneously the history of Puritanism. After the "first Reformation," which is how the Puritans referred to the sixteenth century led by Luther and Calvin, it became increasingly clear that many in Britain were simply moving from nominal Roman Catholicism to nominal Protestantism. Baptized in the Church of England, every native son or daughter was generally regarded as a citizen of heaven, in spite of so many learned and godly bishops and archbishops who insisted on further reformation of the church.
The Puritans were simply Protestants who thought that the English Reformation had not gone far enough. Unlike the Anabaptists, they did not think that this meant a rejection of infant baptism or involvement in society. In fact, the Puritan-dominated House of Commons prior to the English Civil War in the mid-seventeenth century was on the vanguard of democratic thinking. The problem was that the Reformed Church of England had inherited a monarch for its head. When Henry VIII made the Church of England independent of the Rome in 1534 and made himself head of the Church under the Act of Supremacy, it was not for all the right reasons, as we recall from high school history lessons. In fact, Henry had earlier earned for himself the title "defender of the faith" from the pope for writing a tract against Luther, but as his leading scholars, bishops, and his own archbishop of Canterbury were turning to the Reformed faith, the ruthless monarch knew he would have to make certain concessions in order to win and keep his Church. "This King wants to be God," Luther charged. "He founds articles of faith, which even the Pope never did."
Henry's son, Edward, succeeded and encouraged Reformed faith throughout the realm, for he was himself an avid reader of the reformers as well as the Greek New Testament. The young king's favor for some of the greatest names in the Reformation (Martin Bucer, Calvin's mentor; Peter Martyr Vermigli) brought them to England's universities as jewel's in the nation's crown. As these continental Reformed theologians taught and inspired an entire generation of bright young scholars, Edward's untimely death at the age of fifteen placed "Bloody Mary," his half-sister, on the throne. Between the years of 1555-1558, Mary had nearly 300 Protestants, including bishops and the archbishop of Canterbury, burned at the stake. Furthermore, in spite of the national and religious sentiment against Spain, Mary married King Phillip II. The Queen was laid to rest in 1558, and the nation joyously acclaimed Elizabeth the "Virgin Queen." The scores of young Reformed scholars who had fled England during Mary's persecutions returned, with a first-hand knowledge of the Reformed Churches of Europe.
The Protestants who sought a more complete reformation of the Church of England, patterned on the models of Geneva, Strasbourg, and Zurich, saw in Elizabeth a sign of hope for their spirits after such bitter disappointments. The new Queen seemed to support their hopes by making the newly returned Reformed exiles her archbishops, bishops, and chaplains. Nevertheless, Elizabeth declared herself, like her father before her, to be Governor of the Church and set out to steer a middle course between Rome and Geneva with what came to be called the "Elizabethan Settlement."
For many Englishmen, however, it did not settle anything. Just when Protestantism was restored in England, the further reformation for which so many Protestants had longed seemed stillborn. These were the beginnings of frustration. With so many who had tasted the best theological fare in the Reformed centers of Europe now in ecclesiastical power and so many more trained by these returned exiles, the key question became: Do we put up with an unreformed church, so long as the Gospel is purely preached? Even Bullinger and Calvin answered, "yes," and generally sided with the Elizabethan bishops, counseling the "puritans" (i.e., those who wanted to model the church's government and liturgy on Geneva or Zurich) to pursue a moderate course of reformation.
At first, the Puritans heeded, but when the Presbyterian Thomas Cartwright was deprived of his living and his post at Cambridge, things definitely began to make a turn for the worse. Across Europe, wars over religion were breaking out and the Roman Catholic princes had formed a league to drive Protestantism off the continent. In 1572, over three thousand French Calvinists were slaughtered in Paris alone and many thousands more in the countryside and Pope Gregory XIII celebrated the event with a Te Deum. But the massacre, led by the Queen, gave Protestants in Europe and England the impression that Roman Catholicism equaled despotism in government and tyranny on the throne. Elizabeth was succeeded by her nephew, James of Scotland, who had been trained by Presbyterians. When the Puritans of England met up with the new monarch on his way down to be crowned, their hopes again were raised, only to be dashed after successive attempts to reform the liturgy, church government, and allow for liberty in matters of Christian conscience.
But the trouble really began in earnest when James was succeeded in 1625 by his son, Charles I. Marrying a Roman Catholic princess, Charles began to favor those who had been won over to the arguments of the Dutch heretic Arminius. In the eyes of the Puritans (indeed, many Protestants), this was tantamount to giving England back over to the religion of Rome. When Charles declared war on Scotland, the Puritan-controlled Parliament would not fund the war against its Presbyterian brethren and the King responded by dissolving Parliament. Meanwhile, William Laud, Charles' archbishop of Canterbury, was depriving Calvinists of their posts and livings and ejecting ministers from the land. A trickle to the New World became a stream, as New England became the center for ejected Puritans. Of course, the affairs in England presented a constitutional as well as religious crisis. Finally, in 1642 the English Civil War broke out. In 1643, in the heat of military battle, Parliament called for an assembly of "learned, godly, and judicious divines" to meet at Westminster for the purpose of forming a Confession, Catechism, and Directory of Worship for the uniform worship of God in the three kingdoms of Scotland, Ireland and England. It is against this dramatic backdrop that the assembly of 30 laymen, a few Scottish observers, and 125 ministers (mainly Presbyterian, but also Episcopalian and Congregational), gathered to bind the divided kingdoms into one united kingdom. The basis of unity was the one Church that was patterned on "the example of the best reformed churches and according to the word of God." The Civil War concluded with the trial and execution of Charles and Laud by Parliament as traitors and tyrants, along with the abolition of the House of Lords as "useless and dangerous." Oliver Cromwell took the helm until the monarchy was restored in 1660.
The very name "Puritan" has become a form of derision for those whom we consider prudish or indefatigably opposed to pleasure or joy. Despite much scholarship pouring off the press that dispels these myths, even from secular historians who have little sympathy for their views, the popular misconceptions persist. Unless we are opposed to Christ-centered, biblical preaching, godly living, constitutional democracy, the beauty of the arts and sciences, and the excellence of education, we have nothing to lose as heirs of the Puritans and everything to gain. Perhaps the portrait provided by C. S. Lewis will encourage us to take the Puritans more seriously at a time when we seem to be at a loss for the depth of biblical wisdom, richness of language, and clarity of insight that these sturdy souls provided for their time and place:
"Nearly every association which now clings to the word puritan has to be eliminated when we are thinking of the early Protestants. Whatever they were, they were not sour, gloomy, or severe; nor did their enemies bring any such charge against them. …For [Thomas] More, a Protestant was one 'dronke of the new must of lewd lightnes of minde and vayne gladnesse of harte…' We must picture these Puritans as the very opposite of those who bear that name today: as young, fierce, progressive intellectuals, very fashionable and up-to-date. They were not teetotallers; bishops, not beer, were their special….They wanted English drama to observe the (supposedly) Aristotelian 'unities,' and some of them wanted English poets to abandon rhyme-a nasty, 'barbarous' or 'Gothic' affair-and use classical metres in English. There was no necessary enmity between Puritans and humanists. They were often the same people, and nearly always the same sort of people."
On this 350th anniversary of the Westminster Assembly, we at Modern Reformation are delighted to offer this modest tribute, with articles from non-Presbyterians as well–including Lutheran and Baptist contributions. May God visit us with another Reformation and the warm-hearted, zealous, and deeply thoughtful Christianity we find represented in this Confession and these Catechisms.
