“I read my Bible more than twice through in less than a year, spent much
time every day in prayer and other secret duties, gave great attention to the
word preached, and endeavored to my utmost to retain it. So much concerned
was I about religion, that I agreed with some young persons to meet privately
on sabbath evenings for religious exercises, and thought myself sincere in these
duties; and after our meeting was ended, I used to repeat the discourses of the
day to myself; recollecting what I could, though sometimes very late at night. I
used sometimes on Monday mornings to recollect the same sermons; had
considerable movings of pleasurable affection in duties, and had many thoughts
of joining the church.”

This is a description of David Brainerd BEFORE he was converted!

“In short, I had a very good outside, and rested entirely on
my duties, though not sensible of it.”….

“Some time in the beginning of winter, 1738, it pleased God, on one sabbath day
morning, as I was walking out for some secret duties, to give me on a
sudden such a sense of my danger, and the wrath of God, that I stood amazed,
and my former good frames, that I had pleased myself with, all presently
vanished.”
______________

But we have many HALF converts in our church who have less piety than Brainerd had before he was a Christian, trying to make the church more contemporary. May God show us mercy!

I guess I am part of the old school that classifies Edwards as a Puritan because of his theological sensibilities. I am not alone. Edwards finds a place in the recent book “Meet the Puritans.” For me, a hallmark of Puritanism is its inward focus. The questioning of whether Edwards was a Puritan, it seems to me, is a contemporary phenomenon. However whenever I address the issue I make the standard caveats that Puritanism was a diverse movement and some consider it hard to pin down and that Edwards lived outside the Puritan era. For all that I still think he was one.

http://www.christianfocus.com/item/show/1130/-

Last week I was narrating a section from “The Reformed Pastor” under the title “Take Heed to Yourselves.’ This book has the ability to convict like few puritan books I have read. His section on Ministerial Pride is probably the most devastating blast against this sin except for Jonathan Edwards’ treatment of it in his work, “Thoughts on the Present Revival of Religion,” Undiscerned Spiritual Pride.”

What is so convicting is that I know that just the fact that I know this works so well, I have narrated them more than once, I am showing what light I have and will have a great accountability. May God keep me humble and show mercy! Without Christ’s work we are UNDONE!

MANY THANKS! You have helped a great deal. You have put the bit between my teeth to go out and find a number of the works that you mentioned in your interview. I thought perhaps I was doing something wrong…and it turns out I wasn’t being persistent enough.

Your kindness in writing such a detailed response is evidence of your desire for the fame of the Puritan’s God, and the godliness which they exemplified, to spread. For that I am grateful. And with you, I pray that the literature of the Puritans will fuel the contemporary church towards a “life lived unto God”. [I've already used the definition of theology you mentioned twice in as many days...]

I pray God’s blessing upon your ministry and your study of the Puritans.

No need to reply. Your efforts already have been more than necessary. I hope your Google & Archive “How-To Manual” will benefit others as well!!

Enthusiastically,
Jeff

I’m sorry, but I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at in your response.

I suppose I was interested in why you, Jeff Waddington, would describe Edwards as a Puritan. It was an honest question, borne (partly) out of my own conversations with Edwards scholars.

That I would not call Edwards a Puritan does not diminish my own very high affection for him.

Mark

Does the fact that someone somewhere in the world has questions about the viability of the designation “Puritan” legislate my use of the term?

Nope.

Your thoughts have proved very stimulating to me. You are quite right in what you write about Puritans being located in their 17th c. historical context. A long time ago, when I aspired to be a church historian, such questions interested me. But after I left the doctoral program at Duke to become a pastor I found my interests shifting. I still read academic books on church history occasionally, but even so I ask different questions of them as a pastor than I did as an aspiring academic. Thinking about your comments reminded me of my personal intellectual/spiritual journey. Thank you for that.

I thought I’d reflect for a moment on your comments regarding the Banner of Truth Trust. I am old enough to remember Jay Green, and the early days of the Banner. I worked for Puritan Reformed Discount Book Service before it became Great Christian Books.

You wrote:
“The problem is that Banner of Truth have basically determined the Canon; they were kind enough to include Baxter, but with the caveat that he can’t be trusted in certain areas (e.g. atonement, justification).”

In one sense Banner determined the canon; but in another they received the canon from the 19th C. and they received it in turn from the 17th C. It was Baxter who gave us long lists of “affectionate, practical English writers (Practical Works, 4 vol. edition, vol. 1, p. 732 is just one of his lists, but a very, very nice one.)

The 19th C. editors and publishers also helped define the Canon by choosing which authors to edit and print in standard editions. Banner, for the most part, simply re-printed what was available to them. Of course, they were also limited by the market. I can remember when they issued vol. 1 of Sibbes’ Works. They made a point of saying that with the sets already in print they could not see a market for the remaining 6 volumes, so they only printed the first, which contained all the works Sibbes saw through the press in his lifetime. Thankfully, that market expanded over time and Banner saw its way clear to reprint the remaining 6 volumes. For the same reason they did not reprint Goodwin’s Works. They thought that Owen was as much as the market could bear. When I was a young man, James Family Library reprinted Manton’s 22 vols. in both hardback and paperback. They were rewarded with going out of business for their trouble. Banner also tried reprinting 17th c. editions such as Rogers on Judges and Preston on The Breastplate of Faith and Love. It seems to me that there wasn’t much of an appetite then for 17th C. type setting! We can hardly criticize Banner for reprinting what was on hand and what would sell. They virtually had to create their market through conferences and the Banner of Truth Magazine. We all owe them an enormous debt of gratitude.

Thanks to EEBO the canon is now able to expand to Baxterian dimensions. And there are publishers like Soli Deo Gloria which also brought out Burroughs and Christopher Love in (non-scholarly) contemporary editions. May the Lord graciously flood the world with the learning and godliness of those men!

More later, perhaps.

Jim

Now for archive.org

First, when you bring up the archive.org search page you will see a box with the words, “All media types” next to the “Search” box. You really don’t want to search all media types, especially if you are looking for books on a topic. You’ll get every sermon that has your search words in the title. But if you scroll down in that box you’ll see “Texts” which will exclude everything except print material.

Second, if you are looking for a specific author or title, it is advisable to put the name in “quotation” marks. Archive.org will bring you tons of irrelevant things if you give it a chance.

Third, you do not have to reverse the first and last name when searching for an author.

Fourth, be creative, sometimes authors are listed by initials instead of first or middle names.

Fifth, An increasing number of google’s downloads are available through archive.org. If you click on one of these, it will take you to the googlebook site. If a title is available on googlebooks, I will usually download it over a copy on archive.org. The download is much, much faster on google and my computer lets me work with a google title much faster than one from archive. Nonetheless, archive.org has many books I can’t find on googlebooks.

Sixth, archive.org does not bundle individual volumes under one heading like googlebooks. Therefore, you have to scroll down everything that comes up to see what volumes they have. Unlike googlebooks, they usually have the volume numbers in the heading.

Seventh, I like to see what volumes from Princeton Seminary’s library have recently been uploaded to archive.org. To do this, go into Advanced Search and in the box next to “Contributor” type in Princeton Seminary. Click on your ‘enter’ key and bookmark the search page that comes up. Once looking at all the downloads from Princeton, look in the box on the upper right side of the screen that offers you options for sorting the titles. If you click on “Date Added” you will get the most recent books. In this way I can scan through a page or two of titles once a week to see what has been added. I’ve found lots of find books this way. Recently archive.org uploaded Alexander Moody-Stuart’s Commentary on the Song of Solomon from Princeton’s library. This has been a book I have long wanted, but have never seen. Spurgeon loved it and now we can all have it.

Eighth, I prefer to download books as PDF files. If it is a long book do not be surprised if the download stops before the entire book is downloaded. Sometimes hitting the refresh button will get you the entire book on the second or third time. Sometimes a title will download if you look at something else and come back. Sometimes, it won’t download at all. Come back at another time or another day and it will eventually work.

Ninth, you can download the books as “Full text” but the OCR software they use makes lots of mistakes. Caveat lector!

Hope this helps,

Jim O’Brien

A 19th century Scottish publisher named, Nichols, brought out a series of “Standard Puritan” works. It was an effort to edit 17th century editions in a manner acceptable to both 19th century printing and reading standards. Banner of Truth Trust has reprinted many of Nichols’ series: Clarkson, Charnock, Sibbes, Swinnock, Brooks, Ward, etc. (Nichols also brought out a series of Puritan commentaries, some of which have been reprinted in the last 100 years.)

Other 19th century publishers brought out the collected works of various Puritans which have also been reprinted by various 20th/21st century publishers. Some modern publishers have produced their own editions of 17th century works that had not been edited in the 19th century.

The Works of William Bridge, reprinted by Soli Deo Gloria, are from a 19th century edition, as are the four volumes of the Works of William Bates which was reprinted by Sprinkle Publ.

THE VAGARIES OF SEARCHING GOOGLE: SEARCHING FOR OLIVER HEYWOOD’S WORKS.

Soli Deo Gloria started to reprint a five volume, 19th century edition of Oliver Heywood’s ‘Works,’ but Don Kistler found that sets did not sell as well as individual titles. Therefore, he published one of Heywood’s titles alone. Sadly he never got further. Heywood is delightful reading. If you type in “Heywood, Oliver” under author in Google you will only find the first volume of his works, as well as two volumes of his “Autobiography and Diaries” which are not included in his works. Consider these two finds with me and you will learn alot about searching on Googlebooks.

If you look at the two volumes of his Autobiography that are available you will find that there is a copy of the first volume of a three volume set. The other is the fourth volume of a four volume set. Sometimes you get volumes from different printings or even different publishers. In this case, I believe that there was enough material for a fourth volume which became evident after the three volume set was printed, but I would need to confirm that explanation for a fourth volume.

As for Heywood’s Works, only one of five volumes appears when you type “Heywood, Oliver” in the author box. When you don’t get all you wanted from a search, you need to remember to be creative. I was sure all of Heywood was on Google, so I deleted his name from author and put his name in under title. Low and behold all five volumes appear! In this case, you will see that someone mispelled the author’s name as “Reywood” which is why they didn’t come up under the author search.

To complicate matters further, try various ways of searching for books if they do not come up on your first attempt. There was a time, when if you type in “Cunningham, William” you would not find the volumes by that great 19th century Scot. I wrote them about this two years ago but nothing happened. Tonight I checked and found that now most of his books come up when you search his name. But oddly, Historical Theology does not. But if you type that title into the title box, it will come up. Why Historical Theology does not show when you type in Cunningham’s name under author, I don’t know. I’d guess someone forgot to link them properly. (By the way don’t miss Cunningham’s excellent treatment of Roman Catholicism in the volume by Stillingfleet that he edited and greatly enlarged, nor his “Lectures on Theology” which deal with apologetics.

Lastly, I would suggest downloading anything you find that you like. You must not assume that they will always be there. I have several downloads (why I don’t know) of James Durham’s exposition of the Ten Commandments from Google. But for reasons also unknown, you cannot find Durham’s exposition on Google (or Archive) any longer. Sometimes books disappear.

SEARCHING FOR JOHN OWEN’S WORKS:

When you go to Google type in the name of the Puritan you want in either the Title or the Author. When you see their “Works” among the various titles listed, be sure to click on the link that reads, “More editions”. This will bring up the individual volumes that are available in the set.

For instance, go to Googlebooks and type “Owen” in both the author and the title boxes. Various books will come up. The fifth one down is the “Works of Owen” by Goold. (Goold was the editor of this set of Owen’s works. There were actually two different publishers who printed two different sets of Owen, some of which you will find on the internet.) But the Goold edition is the one Banner of Truth reprinted. Under “The Works of John Owen” you will see to the right the link to “More editions”. When you click there, you will be taken to a page that has many of the individual volumes in Owen’s Works. Unfortunately you have to click on each title to see what volume it is. You will also notice that there is a second and third page to which you can go for further volumes.

Sometimes Google will not have every volume of a set available to see/download. I have no idea why.

Sometimes Google will have two or even three listings on the original page for “The Works of…” You may find that you have to search the “More Editions” for each of these to get the complete works. Why they are separated like this remains a mystery. But the search is half the fun.

Sometimes there are multiple copies of a single volume and sometimes one copy is better than another.

Well, I don’t know about you, but I’m plum wore out and I haven’t even come to the peculiarities of searching on Archive.org. I’ll send a separate post on that.

Happy hunting!

Jim O’Brien

My previous comment should have been titled:

Re: Banner of Truth Books on Google Books (or Archive)

Sorry for any confusion.

Jeff

Gentlemen,

I’ve recently stumbled upon your website, and have been enjoying your program immensely! During your discussion of the Puritans, it was mentioned that many Banner of Truth books are available online to read on Google Books. I’ve found a few, but not Banner titles. When I do an “Advanced Search” and put Banner of Truth in as the publisher, it yields nothing.

Also, Archive.org was mentioned, but I can’t seem to yield anything for Banner of Truth as well on that site.

Perhaps I misheard what was said. Also, it is more likely that I am simply not able to make this technology work!?!?

Perhaps someone has a link to a website that links to some of these works on Google Books, or perhaps someone has some easy direction or clarification about what exactly is available and how it can be found.

Any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated.

Kindest Regards,
Jeff Holwerda

Thank you for your response.

Most scholars argue that “Puritans” are those who attempted to reform the Church of England along godly lines. Some were Presbyterians; others were Congregationalists. Some were Reformed; others were Arminian (there are many more examples than John Goodwin). Many were Antinomians, but they were vigorously opposed at the Westminster Assembly. In fact, the threat of Antinomianism may have been the single largest concern of the Westminster divines, more so than Popery! The Antinomians were no more welcome at the Assembly than the papists; yet, the Antinomians were clearly “Puritans”; they just had different ideas about what the Church of England should look like in its theological make-up. And, of course, there were varieties of Antinomianism.

As John Coffey has noted: Baxter was very much a moderate Puritan though he was theologically innovative; other moderate Puritan divines were often deeply committed to conserving strict Reformed orthodoxy. Cromwell and Milton had much stronger radical sympathies. When people say that they ‘love the Puritans’, one always has to ask ‘which Puritans’? The point is that different sections of the contemporary church scene can lay claim to competing strands within Puritanism (though in practice conservative Reformed Christians are almost alone in showing much interest in the Puritans).

Furthermore, I find it interesting that the Quakers arose from within Puritanism, as did the Levellers.

The problem is that Banner of Truth have basically determined the Canon; they were kind enough to include Baxter, but with the caveat that he can’t be trusted in certain areas (e.g. atonement, justification).

Baxter doesn’t even come close to subscribing to the standards; nor do a host of other Puritans. He resisted being part of a few other attempts to draft Confessions for the Cromwellian Church.
So, if you want to say that the Westminster Standards represent a consensus statement that defines Puritanism, then you cannot include Baxter (or Eaton, Roger Williams, Cudworth, Saltmarsh, Crisp, Bunyan, Tombes, Coxe, etc.). In other words, you cannot have your cake and eat it, too. The “Spiritual Brotherhood” makes things even more vague … what, then, excludes theologians on the Continent? After all, there was a great deal of interplay between Holland and Britain during the seventeenth century. Was Witsius a Puritan because he was part of the “Spiritual Brotherhood”? (Witsius recommended many of Goodwin’s works). And, am I a Puritan because I identify with the Westminster Confession? Is my wife? Are Nigerian Anglicans considered Puritans? I ask these questions honestly.

My point is not about Edwards subscribing to the Westminster Confession. Nor is my point about whether Edwards is Reformed. Of course he is. My point is that “Puritanism” as a term is most helpful when we understand it in its 17thC ecclesiastical context, a context very different from subsequent centuries. Thomas Goodwin, for example, sought reformation of the Church of England; he thought it ought to be reformed according to Congregational principles.

For these reasons, and many more, my friend was asked at his PhD defense at Westminster Seminary whether Edwards was a Puritan. Samuel Logan asked the question. My friend said “No” and Logan disagreed. A few years later I was chatting with both Logan and my friend and Logan actually admitted that he changed his opinion and agreed that Edwards wasn’t a Puritan. It wasn’t because Logan no longer loved Edwards – how many guys are more emphatic about their love for Edwards than Logan? –, but that he recognized that Edwards lived in the wrong time and place to be a Puritan!

I’ll be seeing Jeff Jue at a conference in Dublin in just over a week and I’ll be sure to ask him what he’s teaching his students at Westminster, though I suspect Jeff W. may be able to answer that for us!

Sincerely,

Mark

Thanks for the reflections. As difficult as it is to define Puritanism, it certainly is something, rather than nothing. The problem with ‘scholars’ is that they have so many agendas, that it confuse rather than illuminate the subject.

That the spiritual brotherhood existed and that they knew who they were cannot be doubted. That there are men who are largely Puritan in their views, but have some (sometimes serious) deviations on an issue or two, doesn’t negate the usefulness of the term. Including John Goodwin among the Puritans doesn’t mean that Archbishop Laud is a Puritan. Puritanism is Calvinistic, but in this instance, one Arminian has enough in common with the brotherhood that he is included, notwithstanding his differences. This is why Baxter must be included in the term. The brotherhood recognized him as one of their own even when they critiqued some of his formulations. The same can be said for some of the bishops, like Bishop Hall. Not a congregationalist and not a Presbyterian, but clearly a Puritan in many respects. That one can say this shows that there is a distinctive commonality that can exist even when there are some oddities in individual thinkers. (By oddities, I simply mean differences from the standard views of men sharing that commonality.)

Would you see the Westminster Standards as a consensus statement that defines Puritanism? If so, then I don’t think the term is without its usefulness. Determining if a person’s disagreements with those Standards excludes them or not from being able to subscribe to them is a matter of judgment. We do this every time a man comes before a presbytery and seeks admission notwithstanding some disagreements with them. We either recognize a man to be one of us, or we determine he is not. But if a man can sincerely subscribe the system taught in the Westminster Standards and they are a consensus statement of Puritanism, then to subscribe to the Standards is to subscribe to Puritanism. That seems to me to be a very significant affirmation.

I’m not sure why you cut off New England Puritanism in the 1730′s, thereby, excluding Edwards. Whether Edwards is a Puritan or not is a matter of definition and definitions are our own creations. But I don’t think its ambiguous to refer to Edwards as such. I think most Reformed folks would have a correct sense of what is intended. (By the way, Edwards wrote to McLaurin in Scotland that he could subscribe the Westminster Standards.)

At any rate, you asked Jeff why he called Edwards a Puritan and Benjamin asked Camden, so I offered my reasons for doing so. Do with it what you will. I appreciate the interaction. It is good to be stimulated to think and write more clearly by one’s brothers.

God bless,

Jim

I suppose it all depends on how we use the term. I agree with Carl Trueman that the use of the term ‘Puritan’, to describe one’s theology, is as problematic as it is helpful. Puritan theology is far from monolithic, especially when scholars of Puritanism suggest that even though radical Puritans – but Puritans nonetheless – rejected orthodox Reformed ideas about the moral law or predestination or infant baptism they still defined themselves in relation to the Reformed tradition.

Puritanism is simply far too diverse to be of any strict theological use. Certainly the majority were Reformed or Calvinistic, but when Richard Baxter, who defies classification, John Goodwin, an Arminian, John Milton, a possible Arian, John Bunyan, a Baptist, and John Eaton, an Antinomian, are included, there is good reason to be cautious when using the term to describe a theological tradition.

Moreover, the transition from Puritanism to Dissent typically comes around 1689, with the Act of Toleration. That is to say, Puritanism has special reference to religio-political issues in the seventeenth century, and all that that entails (Charles’ death, Act of Uniformity, etc.). After 1689 we normally talk about Protestant Nonconformity.

Moreover, scholars typically date the end of Puritanism in the late seventeenth century for the reasons I’ve listed above; if we extend Puritanism to North America then perhaps the 1730s, which makes the case of Edwards a little more tricky. For my own part, I would not call Edwards a Puritan. I’m by no means casting aspersions on Edwards – far from it – but only recognizing that “Reformed orthodox” might be more felicitous.

Sincerely,

Mark

I am sure Jeff is more than capable of answering for himself. I was interested when Benjamin Glaser raised the question, but I am unclear as to the exact concern. If it is a question of periodization, then the issue involves when the Puritan movement, as such, ended. Obviously the teachings continued. Spurgeon has been called ‘the last of the Puritans.’ Lloyd-Jones has been thought of as a Puritan born out of time. In that sense everyone who subscribes to the Westminster Confession is, or should be, a Puritan. As I said in the interview, the Westminster Standards are not merely Reformed, but quintessentially Puritan documents. To subscribe to them is to subscribe yourself to Puritanism. This is a point which is virtually neglected in our contemporary ecclesiastical discussions of Puritanism.

But if one is thinking of Puritanism as a movement, one would probably say it came to an end around 1700 in England. Yet, would we say that Matthew Henry was not a Puritan because the movement had died out by 1700? His father was a highly regarded Puritan and Matthew maintained that legacy. Can you be a Puritan even if the movement has dissipated?

In America, Puritanism retains its vitality as a movement into the 18th century. Edwards was the son of a noted Puritan, the grandson of an even more notable Puritan. He embraced Puritan theology in its doctrinal, affective and practical teachings. In ‘The New England Soul,’ Harry Stout demonstrated, contrary to Perry Miller’s belief, that Puritanism and covenant theology were alive and well in New England right up to Edwards’ time. Carl Bogue’s dissertation, ‘Edwards and the Covenant of Grace’ made it abundantly clear, even from the published works, that JE was a classical covenant theologian of the Puritan mold. Access to the unpublished writings has only made his thesis clearer.

Perhaps doubts arise because of Edwards interactions with 18th c. thinkers. Yet, there were Puritans who addressed different issues and thinkers as they came along. There are Puritans who address Hobbes and Descartes. Likewise, JE interacts with thinkers of the 18th century, but retains all of his Puritan beliefs. There are places where JE introduces some novel ideas and other places where he probes more deeply and advances the Reformed position. But I have not been persuaded that in any important respects he departs from his Puritan roots. (He even returns to a more classical Puritan position on admission to the Lord’s Supper, against his grandfather’s odd departure.)

Since he is in the direct line of Puritan teaching, in a country where Puritanism was alive and well, I consider him a Puritan. In candor, I willingly confess that I do not spend a lot of time reading contemporary secondary treatments of Puritanism. Ford Battles taught me to be an ‘ad fontes’ guy. If there is something in current discussion that questions Edwards’ Puritanism, would you please point me to it? Thanks,

Jim O’Brien

I’d be interested in why you think Jonathan Edwards should be considered a Puritan.

Sincerely,

Mark Jones

To be sure Baxter’s formulation of the doctrine of justification was erroneous. However, the Puritan brotherhood valued him highly. They valued him where he was good and opposed him where he was bad. Thankfully, his views on justification do not hinder the reading and profiting from his Practical Works to any significant degree. One reason J.I. Packer did not publish his doctoral dissertation on Baxter was that he didn’t want people to write him off because of his defective views on justification and thus fail to find all the marvelous things that filled so much of the rest of his writing. (Thankfully Carl Trueman arranged for that splendid dissertation to be published!) It is good to warn folks that Baxter is defective on justification, so that they can be alert should it creep in somewhere. Hope this helps.
Jim O’Brien

Caveat lector?

Thanks

Colin