WHY DID THE PURITANS WANT TO PURIFY THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND?

THE REFORMATION HAD NOT GONE FAR ENOUGH

England had rejected papal jurisdiction.

It had adopted Protestant teaching.

But it still had bishops.

It still used prescribed forms of worship.

It remained a national church governed under the Crown.

Some English Protestants believed the Reformation had stopped too soon.

Others believed the English settlement preserved both reform and necessary order.

The disagreement was not simply about whether Christians should read the Bible.

It concerned a much harder question:

WHICH CHURCH PRACTICES DOES SCRIPTURE REQUIRE, WHICH DOES IT PERMIT, AND WHO HAS AUTHORITY TO DECIDE?

That makes the Puritans especially useful for our study.

They challenged inherited traditions.

But, like every movement, they also developed traditions of their own.

1. WHAT DID “PURITAN” MEAN?

The Puritans emerged during the reign of Elizabeth I, particularly from the 1560s onward.They were English Protestants who wanted further reform of the Church of England. Many were influenced by the Reformed theology associated with Calvin and Geneva.

The name Puritan referred to their desire to purify the church of practices they believed had been retained from its medieval past. It was not originally the name of a single denomination.

Some Puritans remained loyal members and ministers of the Church of England.

Others eventually concluded that they must worship separately.

That difference would become increasingly important.

We should not imagine that every Puritan believed exactly the same thing.

Some wanted to reform the existing system of bishops.

Some wanted to replace it with government by elders and regional assemblies.

Others came to believe that each congregation should govern its own affairs.

Still others believed they must separate from the established church altogether.

They shared a desire for further reform.

THEY DID NOT AGREE ABOUT HOW FAR THAT REFORM SHOULD GO.

2. WHAT HAD THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND RETAINED?

The Church of England had rejected papal jurisdiction and adopted Protestant doctrine.

But it retained much of its earlier organization and worship.

It still had bishops and dioceses.

It used prescribed prayers and services from the Book of Common Prayer.

Ministers wore particular garments.

Certain ceremonies continued.

And the Crown retained an important role in church government.

Some English Protestants believed these arrangements could be retained without contradicting Scripture.

Many Puritans disagreed.

Their concern was not simply:

“THAT LOOKS TOO CATHOLIC.”

They asked a more important question:

DOES THIS PRACTICE HAVE A BIBLICAL FOUNDATION?

And if Scripture did not require it:

DOES THE CHURCH HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE IT?

That brought the question of authority directly into the congregation’s worship.

3. WHY DID CLERICAL CLOTHING BECOME SUCH A BIG ISSUE?

One early controversy concerned the garments ministers were required to wear.

To some church leaders, a white surplice was simply appropriate clothing for a public religious service.

It did not change the gospel.

They regarded such clothing as something the church could regulate for the sake of orderly worship.

But some Puritans saw a different problem.

If Scripture had not established special garments for Christian ministers, why should a minister be required to wear them?

And if the garments suggested a separate priestly class, did they obscure what the New Testament taught about Christian ministry?

The Elizabethan authorities required conformity in clerical dress, and ministers who refused could face disciplinary action.

So a dispute about clothing became a dispute about authority.

CAN CHURCH LEADERS REQUIRE A RELIGIOUS PRACTICE THAT SCRIPTURE NEITHER COMMANDS NOR EXPRESSLY FORBIDS?

That question reaches far beyond clothing.

4. WHAT ABOUT THINGS SCRIPTURE DOES NOT MENTION?

Here we encounter two different approaches to church practice.

One approach says:

A PRACTICE MAY BE PERMITTED IF SCRIPTURE DOES NOT FORBID IT AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH CHRISTIAN TEACHING.

Another says:

A PRACTICE INTRODUCED AS PART OF THE CHURCH’S WORSHIP MUST HAVE BIBLICAL AUTHORIZATION.

The Puritan controversy brought that difference into the open.

But neither statement settles the matter merely because we state it.

We must ask what Scripture actually teaches about Christian worship, order, freedom, and the authority of church leaders.

This is an important question for us too.

Sometimes Scripture tells us exactly what to do.

Sometimes practical decisions must be made in order to do what Scripture commands.

But is there a difference between an aid that helps us obey a command and an addition that becomes a new religious practice?

That question will appear again and again in church history.

5. PAUL SAID WORSHIP SHOULD BE ORDERLY

Paul wrote:

“Let all things be done decently and in order.” — 1 Corinthians 14:40, KJV

That is a real instruction.

The Corinthians needed order in their assemblies.

But does that instruction authorize church leaders to introduce any ceremony they believe promotes order?

Or does it authorize practical arrangements that help Christians carry out the worship already described in Scripture?

Those are not necessarily the same thing.

A meeting time helps Christians assemble.

A place to meet provides shelter.

A songbook may help people sing together.

But making a particular garment or ceremony a religious requirement raises an additional question.

WHAT MAKES THAT REQUIREMENT BINDING UPON CHRISTIANS?

6. PAUL ALSO WARNED AGAINST HUMAN RULES

Paul asked the Colossians:

“Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?” — Colossians 2:20–22, KJV

Read the surrounding passage.

Paul was confronting religious regulations associated with human teachings and an appearance of wisdom.

He was not saying Christians could never agree on practical arrangements.

He was warning against treating human religious rules as though they possessed divine authority.

Jesus raised a similar concern when He confronted traditions that displaced God’s commandment.

Read Mark 7:6–13.

So the Puritans were asking a legitimate question.

But we still have to determine whether every ceremony they opposed actually violated that principle.

THE EXISTENCE OF A HUMAN CUSTOM DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY PROVE THAT THE CUSTOM HAS REPLACED GOD’S WORD.

7. WHY DID SOME PURITANS OBJECT TO THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER?

The Book of Common Prayer provided prescribed forms for public worship.

It included prayers, Scripture readings, and services for occasions such as baptism, communion, marriage, and burial.

Supporters believed common forms helped congregations worship together, preserved sound teaching, and prevented confusion.

Many Puritans valued prayer and orderly worship but objected to particular prescribed ceremonies or to requiring ministers to use forms they believed lacked biblical authority.

Some favored greater freedom for ministers to lead prayer in their own words.

Others wanted the church’s worship substantially revised.

Now put the question beside the New Testament.

Jesus gave His disciples a model prayer.

Read Matthew 6:9–13.

The early Christians devoted themselves to prayer.

Read Acts 2:42.

Paul instructed Christians to pray.

Read 1 Timothy 2:1–2.

But does the New Testament require that every public prayer be spontaneous?

Does it require a prescribed prayer book?

Does it forbid Christians from using the same prayer more than once?

Those are different questions.

WE MUST NOT TURN A PREFERENCE INTO A COMMAND.

The biblical question concerns what God requires, what He permits, and what Christians may not impose upon one another.

8. WHAT ABOUT BISHOPS?

This brings us back to the beginning of our entire church-leadership study.

The Church of England retained bishops who oversaw dioceses containing multiple congregations.

Many Puritans questioned that arrangement.

Some favored a Presbyterian form of government, in which elders and ministers shared oversight through church assemblies rather than placing a single diocesan bishop over them.

Others moved toward congregational government.

But what does the New Testament say?

Paul called the elders of the church in Ephesus.

Read Acts 20:17.

He told those same men:

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” — Acts 20:28, KJV

Titus 1:5–7 likewise moves from elders to bishops while discussing the qualifications of church leaders.

Peter told elders:

“Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof.” — 1 Peter 5:2, KJV

In these passages, elder, overseer, and shepherding describe the same group of leaders.

The later diocesan bishop is not explicitly described there as a separate office above the elders.

But that observation does not automatically settle every question about cooperation among congregations or meetings of church leaders.

Again:

WHAT DOES THE TEXT SAY?

And:

WHAT HAVE WE INFERRED FROM IT?

9. DID ALL PURITANS WANT TO ABOLISH BISHOPS?

No.

This is another place where we must be historically careful.

Puritans differed about church government.

Some worked within the episcopal structure while seeking changes in worship and discipline.

Others advocated Presbyterian government.

Still others favored congregational arrangements.

A desire to purify the Church of England did not automatically imply agreement on exactly how it should be governed.

And that created another problem.

IF SCRIPTURE WAS THEIR COMMON AUTHORITY, WHY DID PEOPLE SEEKING BIBLICAL REFORM REACH DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS ABOUT CHURCH GOVERNMENT?

We have encountered that problem before.

Agreement about the authority of Scripture does not guarantee agreement about its interpretation.

10. WHAT KIND OF PEOPLE SHOULD BELONG TO THE CHURCH?

The Church of England was an established national church.

A person could be baptized as an infant, grow up in an English parish, and participate in its religious life as part of the surrounding society.

Many Puritans wanted a much clearer distinction between merely belonging to the national church and personally living as a disciple of Christ.

They emphasized preaching, conversion, biblical instruction, prayer, and disciplined Christian living.

Some also sought closer fellowship among those who demonstrated personal faith.

Their concern raises an important biblical question.

IS BELONGING TO CHRIST’S CHURCH SIMPLY A MATTER OF BIRTH, CITIZENSHIP, OR PARTICIPATION IN THE RELIGIOUS LIFE OF ONE’S COMMUNITY?

Jesus told Nicodemus:

“Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” — John 3:3, KJV

Peter told his hearers:

“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” — Acts 2:38, KJV

Then Luke tells us:

“Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.” — Acts 2:41, KJV

The New Testament connects becoming a disciple with a response to the gospel.

But the Puritans themselves did not all draw the same conclusions about church membership and baptism.

Most continued practicing infant baptism.

That is worth remembering.

11. DID THE PURITANS REJECT INFANT BAPTISM?

Most did not.

Many Puritans retained the Reformed understanding that children of believers should receive baptism as members of the covenant community.

They emphasized the importance of personal faith and conversion while continuing to baptize infants.

Some later Separatists and Baptists reached a different conclusion.

This gives us another example of how inherited practices can remain even when Christians seek further biblical reform.

But we must be fair.

We should not say Puritans retained infant baptism merely because they failed to examine it.

They offered biblical arguments for the practice.

Those arguments must be examined just as carefully as the arguments against it.

The question remains:

DOES THE CONCLUSION FOLLOW FROM THE TEXT?

12. WHY DID THEY EMPHASIZE PREACHING SO STRONGLY?

Puritans placed great importance on teaching Scripture.

They wanted ministers who could explain the biblical text and apply it to the lives of their congregations.

They also emphasized personal Bible reading, family instruction, prayer, and serious Christian living.

There is a strong New Testament foundation for teaching.

Paul told Timothy:

“Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season.” — 2 Timothy 4:2, KJV

He also wrote:

“Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.” — 1 Timothy 4:13, KJV

And Paul instructed Timothy:

“And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.” — 2 Timothy 2:2, KJV

But teaching Scripture and correctly interpreting Scripture are not identical.

A preacher may sincerely explain a passage and still misunderstand it.

That is why we must examine the argument, not merely admire the seriousness of the teacher.

13. DID PURITANS BELIEVE IN RELIGIOUS FREEDOM?

Here the history becomes uncomfortable.

Some Puritans suffered because they refused to conform to the established church.

But that does not mean all Puritans believed every person should be free to practice any religion without government interference.

Many continued to believe that civil authorities should uphold what they understood to be true religion.

In seventeenth-century New England, Puritan communities sometimes enforced religious conformity and punished dissenters.

Roger Williams, for example, came into conflict with Massachusetts authorities and was banished.

We must not treat every Puritan as though he held the same position.

But this tension deserves attention.

A person may object when government forces him to follow a religious practice he considers wrong.

Yet he may still support government enforcement of religious practices he considers right.

That raises a larger question:

WHAT AUTHORITY DID CHRIST GIVE CIVIL GOVERNMENT OVER A PERSON’S FAITH AND WORSHIP?

14. CAN GOVERNMENT CREATE CHRISTIAN UNITY?

A government may require a common form of worship.

It may require ministers to follow particular rules.

It may punish those who refuse.

But can it create faith?

Can it produce repentance?

Can it make someone love Christ?

Jesus said:

“My kingdom is not of this world.” — John 18:36, KJV

Paul wrote:

“For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal.” — 2 Corinthians 10:4, KJV

These passages do not eliminate the legitimate responsibilities of civil government.

But they require us to distinguish the nature of Christ’s kingdom from the coercive power of an earthly state.

The church’s mission is to proclaim Christ and make disciples.

A GOVERNMENT CANNOT ACCOMPLISH THAT MISSION MERELY BY REQUIRING RELIGIOUS CONFORMITY.

15. WHY DID SOME PURITANS DECIDE TO LEAVE?

Some Puritans believed the Church of England could still be reformed from within.

Others concluded that its government, worship, and compulsory religious arrangements prevented the kind of church life they believed Scripture required.

These Christians became known as:

SEPARATISTS.

They sought to establish congregations apart from the national church.

Robert Browne was an important early advocate of a gathered congregation whose members voluntarily committed themselves to following Christ.

The disagreement was no longer simply:

HOW SHOULD WE REFORM THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND?

It had become:

MUST WE REMAIN IN THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH AT ALL?

That question would have enormous consequences.

16. WHAT IS A “GATHERED CHURCH”?

The idea was that a congregation should consist of people who personally committed themselves to Christ and to one another.

Membership should not simply be determined by residence in a parish or by the government’s religious arrangements.

Such a congregation would seek to govern its own life according to Scripture.

This approach helped shape later Congregationalist and Baptist traditions.

Now examine the New Testament.

Christians gathered in particular places.

Paul addressed:

“the church of God which is at Corinth.” — 1 Corinthians 1:2, KJV

He also greeted:

“the church that is in their house.” — Romans 16:5, KJV

The Jerusalem Christians:

“continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.” — Acts 2:42, KJV

Those are real congregations.

But the New Testament also speaks of:

“one body.” — Ephesians 4:4, KJV

So local congregations are not separate bodies of Christ competing with one another.

They are gatherings of people who belong to Christ.

The question is how those congregations should relate to one another and what authority one congregation may exercise over another.

17. DOES CONGREGATIONAL INDEPENDENCE MEAN CHRISTIANS SHOULD NEVER COOPERATE?

No.

The New Testament describes cooperation among congregations.

Christians in Antioch sent relief to believers in Judea.

Read Acts 11:27–30.

Paul organized a collection for needy Christians in Jerusalem.

Read 1 Corinthians 16:1–4 and 2 Corinthians 8–9.

Congregations also shared in supporting gospel work.

Paul told the Philippians:

“For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity.” — Philippians 4:16, KJV

These examples show that local congregations were not meant to live in isolation.

But:

COOPERATION AND CENTRALIZED CONTROL ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME THING.

We should ask what each passage actually establishes.

Does it describe voluntary cooperation?

Does it establish a permanent governing body over multiple congregations?

Does it authorize one congregation to command another?

Those questions must be answered from the text rather than from our preferred form of church government.

18. THE PURITANS DID NOT SOLVE EVERY DISAGREEMENT

Some favored bishops.

Some favored Presbyterian government.

Some favored congregational government.

Some remained within the Church of England.

Others separated.

Most practiced infant baptism.

Some later movements rejected it.

They all appealed to Scripture, yet they differed over what Scripture required.

This does not mean Scripture is useless as an authority.

It means that appealing to Scripture is only the beginning of the work.

WE MUST ALSO EXAMINE HOW WE INTERPRET IT.

And we must be willing to reconsider conclusions we have inherited.

19. WHAT DOES “PURIFY THE CHURCH” REALLY MEAN?

The Puritans wanted to remove practices they believed were not authorized by Scripture.

That concern deserves serious consideration.

But a church is not purified merely by removing old ceremonies.

Nor is it purified merely by replacing bishops with elders.

Nor by adopting a different worship book.

Nor by separating from a national church.

Paul wrote:

“Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.” — Ephesians 5:25, KJV

Why?

“That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.” — Ephesians 5:26, KJV

The church belongs to Christ.

Its holiness begins with Him.

Its members must continue in His teaching and live as His disciples.

Changes in organization and worship may be important.

But they are not substitutes for:

FAITH.

LOVE.

HOLINESS.

OBEDIENCE TO CHRIST.

20. NOW TURN THE QUESTION BACK ON OURSELVES

We may agree with a Puritan objection to a particular ceremony.

Or we may disagree.

We may prefer congregational government.

Or we may believe a broader church structure is appropriate.

But what happens when we discover that a practice familiar to us is not explicitly described in the New Testament?

Do we immediately condemn it?

Do we automatically defend it?

Or do we ask what the relevant passages actually teach?

We need to distinguish between an arrangement that helps Christians obey a command and a new religious requirement imposed upon them.

We also need to distinguish between:

SOMETHING SCRIPTURE PERMITS

and:

SOMETHING SCRIPTURE REQUIRES.

Those distinctions matter.

Whatever church background we come from, none of us is exempt.

21. THE NEXT DIVISION IS ALREADY BEGINNING

The Puritans wanted to reform the Church of England.

Some believed they could accomplish that while remaining within it.

Others believed they must separate.

Then some Separatists began questioning infant baptism.

That development would help produce the early English Baptist movement.

But before we reach the Baptists, we need to understand the Separatists themselves.

Why did they believe a congregation should be gathered voluntarily rather than defined by membership in a national church?

And why did some of them leave England to practice their faith elsewhere?

That brings us to our next study:

WHY DID THE SEPARATISTS LEAVE THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND?

TEXT B4 TRADITION

Read First. Conclude Later.

RETURN TO MAIN SERIES: ONE CHURCH, SO MANY DIVISIONS—WHAT HAPPENED?

NEXT STUDY: WHY DID THE SEPARATISTS LEAVE THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND?