Review: The Worship of the American Puritans by Horton Davies
In The Worship of the American Puritans, Horton Davies provides an in-depth study of the theology and practice of the Puritans in New England in the seventeenth century that is useful as a historical study, as an aid for any Christian who wants better to understand the background for many Reformed worship practices today, and as a glimpse of the wholehearted devotion of a people perhaps more dedicated to Godliness than any other in American history. As he examines their religious calendar, sermons, singing, prayers, administration of the sacraments, marriages, funerals, ordinations, and even their architecture, several themes or beliefs emerge that pervaded Puritan life and shaped every area of their public worship. Among these are their belief in divine sovereignty and predestination, their concern for “visible sainthood” and maintaining a pure church, and their application of the regulative principle which resulted in a relentless determination to subject everything they did in worship to the rule of Scripture.
Davies seems to make much of what he regards as a paradox in Puritan theology. On one hand, they were rigorous Calvinists, with a firm belief in man’s natural depravity and the complete sovereignty of God in electing men to salvation. On the other hand, their extreme emphasis on holy living made it seem as though good works were an essential part of salvation. Furthermore, very few Puritans seem to have had much assurance of their salvation, as they often subjected themselves to intense soul-searching, wondering if their professed faith were true and they were indeed among the elect. To Davies, the very idea of a covenanting Calvinist—one who commits to live a life of visible sainthood in the community of believers—is somewhat paradoxical.
However, the paradox is explained if one looks at the Puritans’ beliefs from the standpoint of the Reformation commitment to fully submitting to Scripture. The Puritans believed in election and personal holiness simply because they saw both taught in Scripture. They understood that God has chosen to save a people to the praise of His glory, and that being saved by God entailed growing to be more like Christ. Since the purpose of salvation was God’s glory, they understood that salvation produced good works—not the other way around, as so often seems to make sense from a sinful human perspective.
The Puritans’ struggles with assurance, however, are somewhat troubling. They believed, rightly, that only God knew finally who the elect were, but they seem to have gone beyond proper humility into persistent unbelief in this area. That is, they seem to have fallen, often, into focusing so much on their own works as evidences of election and true faith that they ended up undermining Calvinism’s emphasis on the objective work of Christ in salvation, over against human action.
Undermining of assurance is common in the evangelical world today. It is often based on poor theology and a bad understanding of the Gospel. When salvation is based on a prayer prayed, an aisle walked, or a card signed, it’s easy and common for the professing Christian, as he continues to struggle with sin, to question whether or not he really meant it. Even those who properly understand what it means to be a Christian, however, are not immune to assurance-sapping doubt. Even those who understand that continuing Christ-likeness rather than a decision is the evidence of true belief can despair of being truly elect in the face of their own sin. We must understand that all the demands, promises, and callings of a disciple are fully and finally fulfilled in Christ. In our quest for assurance, we must look first at Christ and His work before looking at our own lives. We must have Christ’s perfect obedience and His mediation as the lens through which we look at our own imperfect obedience. We can and should find assurance of our election, but we must find it in Christ, not in our own obedience or works or faith or visible sainthood. The Puritans, at least as Davies presents them, didn’t seem to understand this well.
Another thorny area of Puritan theology, as Davies’ work shows, is the nexus of their doctrine of visible sainthood, their Congregationalist ecclesiology, their understanding of covenant, and their theology of the sacraments. Davies points out that while Calvin believed a true church to exist wherever the right preaching of the word, proper administration of the sacraments, and proper discipline were practiced, the Puritans took it a step further in their understanding that the church was to be made up of visible saints—those who demonstrated their discipleship by public repentance and evidence of conversion. This concern for visible sainthood seems to be a product of their Congregationalist understanding of the local nature of the church. This understanding also led them to form their churches by covenanting together in commitment to rightly displaying the character of God by discipling one another and pursuing personal and corporate holiness.
This nexus of beliefs became problematic in connection with their understanding of the sacraments. Specifically, retaining the practice of infant baptism led to depreciation of the sacraments, impure church membership, and eventually the infamous Half-Way Covenant. They understood that visible sainthood and a discernable conversion experience were prerequisite to participation in the Lord’s Supper, but because membership in the church was gained by being baptized as an infant, after only a few decades the Puritans’ churches were full of unregenerate people who had to be excluded from communion and whose children were not eligible for baptism because their parents displayed no evidence of regeneration. This flawed ecclesiology and covenant theology is perhaps the most instructive negative example to be gained from the Puritans.
Davies seems to make much of what he regards as a paradox in Puritan theology. On one hand, they were rigorous Calvinists, with a firm belief in man’s natural depravity and the complete sovereignty of God in electing men to salvation. On the other hand, their extreme emphasis on holy living made it seem as though good works were an essential part of salvation. Furthermore, very few Puritans seem to have had much assurance of their salvation, as they often subjected themselves to intense soul-searching, wondering if their professed faith were true and they were indeed among the elect. To Davies, the very idea of a covenanting Calvinist—one who commits to live a life of visible sainthood in the community of believers—is somewhat paradoxical.
However, the paradox is explained if one looks at the Puritans’ beliefs from the standpoint of the Reformation commitment to fully submitting to Scripture. The Puritans believed in election and personal holiness simply because they saw both taught in Scripture. They understood that God has chosen to save a people to the praise of His glory, and that being saved by God entailed growing to be more like Christ. Since the purpose of salvation was God’s glory, they understood that salvation produced good works—not the other way around, as so often seems to make sense from a sinful human perspective.
The Puritans’ struggles with assurance, however, are somewhat troubling. They believed, rightly, that only God knew finally who the elect were, but they seem to have gone beyond proper humility into persistent unbelief in this area. That is, they seem to have fallen, often, into focusing so much on their own works as evidences of election and true faith that they ended up undermining Calvinism’s emphasis on the objective work of Christ in salvation, over against human action.
Undermining of assurance is common in the evangelical world today. It is often based on poor theology and a bad understanding of the Gospel. When salvation is based on a prayer prayed, an aisle walked, or a card signed, it’s easy and common for the professing Christian, as he continues to struggle with sin, to question whether or not he really meant it. Even those who properly understand what it means to be a Christian, however, are not immune to assurance-sapping doubt. Even those who understand that continuing Christ-likeness rather than a decision is the evidence of true belief can despair of being truly elect in the face of their own sin. We must understand that all the demands, promises, and callings of a disciple are fully and finally fulfilled in Christ. In our quest for assurance, we must look first at Christ and His work before looking at our own lives. We must have Christ’s perfect obedience and His mediation as the lens through which we look at our own imperfect obedience. We can and should find assurance of our election, but we must find it in Christ, not in our own obedience or works or faith or visible sainthood. The Puritans, at least as Davies presents them, didn’t seem to understand this well.
Another thorny area of Puritan theology, as Davies’ work shows, is the nexus of their doctrine of visible sainthood, their Congregationalist ecclesiology, their understanding of covenant, and their theology of the sacraments. Davies points out that while Calvin believed a true church to exist wherever the right preaching of the word, proper administration of the sacraments, and proper discipline were practiced, the Puritans took it a step further in their understanding that the church was to be made up of visible saints—those who demonstrated their discipleship by public repentance and evidence of conversion. This concern for visible sainthood seems to be a product of their Congregationalist understanding of the local nature of the church. This understanding also led them to form their churches by covenanting together in commitment to rightly displaying the character of God by discipling one another and pursuing personal and corporate holiness.
This nexus of beliefs became problematic in connection with their understanding of the sacraments. Specifically, retaining the practice of infant baptism led to depreciation of the sacraments, impure church membership, and eventually the infamous Half-Way Covenant. They understood that visible sainthood and a discernable conversion experience were prerequisite to participation in the Lord’s Supper, but because membership in the church was gained by being baptized as an infant, after only a few decades the Puritans’ churches were full of unregenerate people who had to be excluded from communion and whose children were not eligible for baptism because their parents displayed no evidence of regeneration. This flawed ecclesiology and covenant theology is perhaps the most instructive negative example to be gained from the Puritans.
posted by Jeff at 12:10 PM
<< Home