Talk:Puritans/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Some comments

"Originally used to describe a twenty seventh-century sect of rigorist heretics" ...huh?

Is the quote really nessecary? I don't really see how it adds anything to the page. --Alex S 21:51, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You have corrected a number of annoying errors, AE. Not all the language that you've chosen should survive, however, as at points you express opinions and reveal sympathies, rather than aiming for neutrality. Sorry that I don't have time at the moment to help, beyond this comment. Later, probably. Mkmcconn 17:48, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Comments

Shouldn't the crucible by arthur miller be up in the further reading setion, give me a heads up when it is desided.

Moved

I moved the following texts here:

Puritans have probably shaped socialism far more than Marxism ever did,

This is utter nonesense.

and also layed down the foundations of the Welfare State, and of modern politics.

Puritanism is just ONE of the flavors of protestanism which contributed to the Soc/Dem welfare state. This is highly Anglocentric POV.

Misconceptions of Puritanism

Puritanism is often innacurately described as being "joyless", something based on the Commonwealth's banning of celebrations of Christmas. However at the time in England, Christmas was not an important religious festival(that is a German tradition), but was simply a day that very, very few people in England cared about, and was basically an excuse to have a day off work and get drunk.

More disturbingly, the Taliban and other such extremist Islamic groups(such as the Wahhabis are often described as "Puritan", by ignorant journalists. Not only is this patently false(if the Taliban resemble any Christian group it is the fanatics of the Inquisition), it is also regarded as insulting to non-conformists, who do not like to be compared to fundamentalists of any stripe.

This is highly POV, non-encyclopedic text. I am not even sure if it is worth rewriting. If someone other than the original author wants to have a go at it, feel free...

-- Viajero 00:59, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Sex

Maybe this is a pet peeve only of mine, but why no mention of the erroneous idea that Puritans were (and the name arose because they were) particularly focused on sexual immorality, and particularly on sexual immorality by modern standards?

The preceding parqagraph should give an idea of why I haven't added anything like that myself. --Calieber 19:59, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

Edmund S. Morgan, in his article in The New England Quarterly, December 1942, entitled "The Puritans and Sex" dismisses some of the commonly held beliefs that Puritan leaders, religious and civil, repressed sexuality. Court documents from Middlesex county, Massachusetts, suggest that the Puritans actually acknowledged the unfulfilled sexual desires of its population, and took measures to prevent instead of punish things like adultery.

Then again, a newer text argues otherwise. http://books.google.com/books?id=oxExmgyonSAC&lpg=PR11&ots=KLxf2K2tRS&pg=PA247 (Chapter VII, citation 1)

EkwanIMSA (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Wesley

I'm having a hard time with Methodism being a direct descendant of Puritanism on this page. I don't think Wesley was highly influenced by them; he was of course a lifelong Anglican, but influenced also by the Moravians and Luther. His emphasis on sanctification and personal holiness may have brought people to similar actions as Puritan theology but from different roots. The Puritans were strongly Calvinist; Wesleyans were Arminian (though the average churchgoer today probably could not explain the difference, as worship style is more significant than theology to most). In America, during the holiness revivals of the latter 19th century, of course there was considerable cross fertilization between all the conservative Protestants. Is this where the idea of Puritan roots for Methodists derives? Pollinator 03:58, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Any influence is indirect. Wesley was exposed to the Moravian brethren, and continental pietism; which were influenced (as some think they have evidence) by the Puritans. The descent is not direct, even if any relation can be proven. Perhaps the case can be made that Puritan piety continued in low church Anglicanism, which in turn influenced Whitfield and the Wesleys.

Rewrite

Article re-written as it was diabolical. No complaints I hope? I've been using Wikipedia as a reference tool and have had enough. Al

The article could do with a picture... maybe a black cross? Al

Nonsense

I'm not convinced by

"The central tenet of Puritanism was that by following the teachings of the Bible (in particular that of the New Testament), people lived holier lives and would stand a better chance of salvation."

in the Beliefs section. I won't take it out just yet, but I assert that this isn't a Puritan belief. Puritans were strongly Calvinist and this would be heresy to them.

Further more, I haven't a clue what to replace it with! Puritans certainly believed in following the Bible's teaching for believers, but they didn't make morality ⇒ salvation. Wooster 15:13, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You are right that the sentence is a bit a mess, and a miss. I've offered a revision of the paragraph. What do you think? Mkmcconn 19:29, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You've made a major improvement! Thanks for being willing to tackle it. Pollinator 01:57, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Excellent! Many thanks, Mk. Much better than it was before. I hear Bunyan's stopped turning in his grave : ) Wooster 08:03, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thin

The severe pruning of the article has removed a lot of bad stuff but left it looking a little thin. I've tentatively added back a bit more in History - trying not to get anything wrong, though probably not succeeding - and a paragraph in Beliefs about common misconceptions. Hope this is OK. --Hob 18:51, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Citation for Alcohol as a gift of god is Morgan's Puritan dilemma. I am afraid my HTML skills are very weak and after half an hour I haven't managed to add it into the foot notes. Will try to fix this soon but thought I'd mention it in the mean time - Lavengro —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavengro (talk • contribs) 20:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Argh! No theological history?

1. "Puritan" is a word that covers a host of theologies. It's an umbrella term.
2. The first P. were Presbyterians (what we'd call Presbyterians), but they didn't know it. They were followers of "the Geneva church" (Calvin). They were distinguished from the "Independents," who were not P. The Independents were what we'd now call Baptists, although they didn't know it. The next jolt to Puritanism was Knox and the generally Scottish church presbytery.
3. "Puritan" was a term applied more by the opponents of the group than by the group itself. They wouldn't have called themselves that much -- anymore than contemporaries call themselves Fundamentalists. They called themselves whatever smaller group they were.
4. The first major response to the Puritans (again known only as "Geneva" churchmen) was Hooker's Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, where Hooker has to defend the Established church against them.
5. Puritans held Scotland. Hence, James I had been raised around them, and they saw James I as an opportunity.
6. The Interregnum and CW, were "P" in a sense, but the fact is that that term was covering about a dozen fractious groups who tore at each other constantly during the Interregnum.

All of this needs to be in the article, IMO, and this doesn't even get to the Puritans fleeing to Holland, the 18th c. responses to them, the P. dominance of banking and stock markets. Seriously, folks, there is theology, theological history, and the group in English political history to consider. Geogre 01:43, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC) (Daunted by the task)

Don't be daunted - you managed to write all of the above, didn't you? :-) Seriously, why not just add in things one at a time & trust your instincts as to how much to include. All your points sound like they should be in the article, but I, for one, don't know enough to get most of them right - though I've taken a crack at #3, #5, and #6. Also, I suggest moving the Orthography section to the end - History seems a more logical follow-on from the introduction. --Hob 06:07, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The page says that English Puritans were relevantly tolerant of other faiths. But Spartacus Educational ( http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/STUpuritans.htm ) says that the Presbyterians disapproved of other Puritan groups and wanted them suppressed. Surely the reason that there was religious toleration in England was that there was no one single dominating faction (there were the Presbyterians, the Independents, and then there were the Army and Cromwell himself). The page mentions that Cromwell imposed "Puritan morality", insisting that people go to church, closing many ale-houses, and fining people for swearing. Isn't it also true that Christmas celebrations were banned, public dancing, etc? Do people really see such a big difference between this and the "theocratic" stance of the American Puritans? Arguably the English Puritans could not set up an actual theocracy because of the competing factions, but to suggest that "Puritan" morality is a meaningless expression, and is nothing to do with intolerance, seems inaccurate.

Whoever posted the above (signing comments makes Talk pages less confusing), when I wrote that passage, I didn't mean to suggest that "'Puritan' morality is a meaningless expression" - and I don't think I did say that - but just that there was a considerable difference between intolerance in the colonies and intolerance in England, which is true: religious dissent that in England might get you imprisoned, or beaten up by a non-governmental mob, could get you executed in Massachusetts. There were severe punishments for "blasphemy" under Cromwell, but that was not new, and the Commonwealth's degree of religious tolerance for the time was very high; of course you can argue that this was because no one extremist faction had absolute control, but you could say the same of (for example) the United States. The other point of that paragraph was just that the Puritans were very far from alone, among radical Protestants of the time, in disapproving of gambling and alcohol, which were to some degree seen as issues of public order and health rather than religious doctrine. But hey, if you have a clearer or more accurate wording in mind, rewrite the article -- be bold! --Hob 18:32, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Some corrections to your points above. Some puritans were Preyterian (believing in a church headed not by an episcopacy, but by a council of elders, as in the Presbyterian church - there are some technical terms I don't remember). Some puritans were Independents/Congregationalist, believing that each congregation should be independent. However, that does *not* mean they were Baptists - what we now call Baptists were Baptists or Anabaptists - that is, they believed in adult baptism (as opposed to infant). They did share some other ideas with the Independent Calvinists, but only the Particularistic Baptists believed in predestination - the General Baptists did not. Both Baptist sects were influenced by Dutch Anabaptism, and flourished in the period of religious upheavel and moderate tolerance of the Commonwealth. Cromwell himself was actually pro-religious freedom, but did not have much support in this. - *jb 05:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Headless Puritans

This article needs a brief introductory paragraph to set the context, circumscribe the meaning and give a capsulation of what follows. Wetman 21:02, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Isn't there something missing?

After the Puritans were procecuted by Charles I (to get rid of their political and church power and influece), didn't they move to another European country, than, distressed by their children becoming to ______________ they received a charter to move to North America. If so, what country was it that they moved to? --64.136.27.229 23:39, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)-The "beek"

Holland. — Mark (Mkmcconn) **

they went to holland. thier children became in dutch kids instead of england kids so they moved to the new land(new england)

Well, just a second - I don't think we should conflate the Pilgrims with the Puritans. The Pilgrims were Separatists (i.e. they wanted to separate from the Church of England), whereas the Puritans were deeply critical of the Church of England, but they wanted to reform the Church of England, not separate from it.

The Pilgrims certainly moved to Holland ca. 1610 and then founded the Plymouth Colony in the New World in 1620. The Puritans, on the other hand, did not migrate to the New World until 1630, when they foresaw a persecution of Puritans in England under Archbishop of Canterbury William Laud. Led by John Winthrop, they founded the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1630. The Plymouth Colony was ultimately absorbed by the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1691.

Adam_sk (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

need overhaul for terminological clarity

Geogre is completely correct. I have never crossed evidence that "Puritans" in the 16thC ever called themselves that. It is an insult term. The main problem is that this article notes that the term Puritan is a catch-all for an amorphous group, but then it goes on to use it freehandedly. It needs to be clear that in talking about puritanism as a general category we are talking about many loosely allied or even antagonistic sects. It is only meaningful to specify local and chronological specifics--Separatist Puritans (under Elizabeth/James), Presbyterians, "Church Puritans" (i.e. those who accepted the episcopal system but who wanted other reforms, such as liturgical ones), Early Elizabethan Anti-Vestiarian Nonconformists, etc. Dan Knauss 17:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Compulsive Reverts

What is so wrong about the facts regarding the Puritan relationship with Jews and Judaism? ScapegoatVandal 10:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Provide responsible sources for your interesting theories please. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You don't want sources. You just want to see me erased. You constantly follow all Jew-related topics(no matter how deeply they affect Christianity) and I will not give you a goddamned concession to prove anything to YOU, fucking bastard! That's right, a JEW-BASTARD! You came looking for some hate and you got it. Now, don't stalk people with your ethnocentric bullying and we can be friends. Until then, stay off my back! Your media friends will not save your ass if you burn me! ScapegoatVandal 15:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I do want sources, and if you don't stop your personal attacks, I'll have to take you to mediation or arbitration. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Only if it solves our problems. I won't attack you if you don't haunt each and every article that relates to Jews as if you owned them. I do not expect to seek your permission before editing any such things, just because you are Jewish. I only touch those articles if partly about Jews, when the subject involves Christians as well. I am being literal and limited in definition. ScapegoatVandal 17:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ScapegoatVandal I don't think that how User:Jayjg spends his time is the issue here. I would expect any editor to gravitate toward articles that interest them, more than to articles that do not. The problem is that you are not citing sources, and you aren't reflecting a recognizably accurate understanding of the topic that you refer to. If you did, I'm certain that the substance of your edits would eventually stand. If not, it's nothing personal, or political, or conspiratorial either. If you want to withdraw your extraordinarily cruel remark above, if [User:Jayjg|Jayjg]] or others would not object, I think that it would be for the best. Mkmcconn (Talk) 17:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, because the mother of the child in the case against Michael Jackson was studied in here motives and reasonings and judged upon her character just as harshly as Wacko Jacko himself. Don't tell me to ignore it and incriminate myself. I am going to continue refuting the bullshit that Jayjg keeps throwing at me. ScapegoatVandal 18:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Part of what you wrote has factual support, from what I know. The rest, whether you realize it or not, is insulting opinion. To call Puritans "optimistic Judaizers", to label their view as "judaistic Christianity", is insulting to those like myself, who are modern heirs of their views. It is completely false to say that the Puritans believed that the Catholic Church was apostate without the Jewish rituals that the Apostle Paul "sought to extricate". It's so far off the mark in so many ways, that it strikes me as an attempt to start a fight. Mkmcconn (Talk) \

The only sentence that had the faintest ring of truth, was the one which cited Puritan sympathy with Jews, in the belief that they continue under the favor of God for the sake of his covenant - and even that sentence was garbled with some weird speculation about their motives, and is a broad exaggeration of the extent to which this sentiment prevailed. Finally, your list of "See also" was a strange collection of links to articles that had no relationship to this topic, that was obvious to me anyway. There was nothing "Compulsive" about this revert. I reverted because I happen to know something about the topic, none of what I know was reflected in what you wrote, it was contrary to what I know, and the rest was opinion. At best it was an idiosyncratic interpretation so wild that I could not recognize the factual basis in it. You can't just make stuff up, like that. Mkmcconn (Talk) 15:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay thank you thank you thank you Mkmcconn! I finally have some decent guy here. You know too. Which is just a start. You'd have to study a bit broader in your history to see progressions from when Jews weren't allowed to when the Puritans were the ones who had them in open arms. My paternal grandmother's family were Yankees who fled England after the English Civil War and I grew up in that region of the country. My grandmother's family was always a bit "prudish and puritan". When somebody would put their elbows on the table, they were told to go to bed. She always made sure I "cleaned behind the ears". She always taught me how to act proper. Now that she died early in her life which was actually in 96, I am curious about the nonconformist history and who they allied with and fought against. I sure don't like how some of my family experiences were so rigid, but I have no agenda here. I just report what I see. It must be a taboo to mention anything between Christians and Jews that was reconciling, because of neoconservatives in the White House? WTF, that is dumb! If I merely write it out as is found easily online and deduced from other articles of the website, then all I am doing is summarising their friendship. There are a million articles about the nature of Jews, written from a Jewish perspective. Why is it wrong for me to write a small summary of things on the Christian end of things? I find the whol Temple of Solomon, the Freemasons and other things likely a bit interesting. So, I have spent some time knowing things I didn't know before. I didn't know that Christians and Jews had alliances before this Iraq War and I thought they all hated eachother before WWII. I have knowledge gathered that sparked my thoughts into wonder, but all it does is set alarms off because it is "contraversial" to the watchdogs. I am not here for any media organisation or political group. All this stemmed out of family research that never ceases to amaze me and confuse me at the same time. So, I beg of you to reason with the other frenetic rv warmongers here at Wikipedia and tell them you understand what I am trying to say and that this is no POV pushing by me. All I want to do is share the knowledge like in Church we are to spread the Gospel. It feels great to know things that were previously unheard of to me, but for others it can be doomsday to have their worldview challenged. ScapegoatVandal 16:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

puritan - general sense

The word "puritan" in its most general sense means "morally rigorous and strict". In this sense it can be applied to other religious movements unrelated to the Protestant movement. It is used sometimes to describe Islamic movements that seek to "purify" Islam. Can something like this be mentioned, or at least a link included, in the article to direct readers looking for this meaning? --Yodakii 10:58:41, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

Yodakii, to me that is a misapplication of the term. The puritans were that group of people who were hoping to "purify" Catholic influences from the Church of England. Are Islamic movements trying to purge the Catholic influences from Islam? In and of itself, the term "puritan" has nothing to do with moral rigor (although in general they were people who did value morality). If the term is misapplied by way of an analogy to a sterotype, why perpetuate that with more misinformation? Amity150 06:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

question

I have become quite engulfed in this topic. My question (for anyone else who just needed a little background info): Why is it not mentioned (plainly) that Puritans are Calvinists? From my understanding, Puritans are English Protestants impressed with the ideas of Calvin. If this is totally off-base, please post a reply (just stuck it in a paper) or please explain the concrete differences between Puritans and Calvinists.

Though I admit I don't know very much about this topic but I was under the impression that Puritans were NOT Calvinists but simular to them, or originating from them.

I am quite sure that they were Calvinists. Now, what the term means is something different. If you mean "followers of Calvin", then no, they weren't necesseraly Calvinists. But Calvin was one of the first to present the teachings of the Bible in such a clear, persuading, and uniform manner, that those who hold to the same (or similar) teachings as he did, are considered Calvinists (in modern termonology). Generally, now a days, anyone who holds TULIP is considered a "Calvinist" ("Reformed Christian" is now becoming popular). In any case, a Puritan is one of the protestants in England (some would eventually go to America) who wished to reform the Church even more and remove and remnants of the Catholic Church. That is generally, if I am not mistaken, what is meant when the term is used. A Calvinist, as I have stated, is generally considered one who holds to TULIP.

I hope that helps some,
Andy

Predestination?

A central tenet of all Puritan thought was that God, being all knowing, knew whether an individual was going to Heaven or Hell (whether they would accept God's grace or not). Another reading would be that God choses that person X will go to heaven and person Y will not, etc. I do not, however, no enough about Calvin and his teachings and the Puritan beliefs to authoritively label which is correct, or even if one of them is correct.

In any case, predestination is not mentioned here, so the author really missed an important part of Puritanism.

Follow the link in the article to Calvinism. Keep in mind though that this is one of the most complex questions of theology, not necessarily easily explained in a brief article Pollinator 04:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

When Those Puritans Weren't So Very Pure

Any comments on this [1]? If this is so I'd think it could be mentioned. Mathmo 18:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not a scholar of 17th century marriage or sexuality, but, like you, I have also seen non-scholarly sources say this. If it turns out this relates to the Puritans in particular rather that 17th century England in general, then if someone does research this and write it up, it would add more colour to the article --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we need an experienced historian to make sense of this. I suspect it is not yet a mature enough area of historical research to include in this article. See these links

http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/spring03/branks.cfm

Outlawed were masturbation, fornication, adultery, sodomy, buggery, and every other sexual practice that inched off the line of straight sex as approved by the Bible.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021028&s=taylor102802

Previous scholars also balked at examining colonial sex as its own subject, largely from a fear that the historical sources were insufficient....

He observes that "it was not unusual for early Americans to pass from one cohabitational relationship to the next with scant regard for the formalities of divorce and remarriage." Does "not unusual" mean that most colonists did so?

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Modern Puritans?

At 04:08, August 4, 2006 206.74.205.56 removed

"There are to this day people who call themselves Puritans, but much of their original teaching (for instance, their line of reasoning that led to the Salem witch trials) has been left behind."

Anyone any idea if there are people who call themselves Puritans?--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Google does: [2] [3] [4] [5]. Some have also called the recently deceased Martyn Lloyd-Jones the last Puritan,[6] but of course, many Reformed folk consider themselves heirs to the Puritans even if they don't call themselves that explicitly. --Flex 13:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Flex. I don't think Dr. Lloyd-Jones called himself a Puritan. However, very astute Googling to identify the others. I don't feel motivated to revert the sentence that 206 deleted, as it does not seem clear to me that much of their original teaching has been left behind, so I will leave it stand. I would be pleased if someone makes a more reasoned attempt to write about modern Puritans. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy issue w/criticism

"One common criticism is that Puritans are fundamentalists. Many pundits posit a Puritan spirit in the United States' political culture, especially in its historical tendency to oppose things such as alcohol and sexuality."

I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone has ever been "opposed to sexuality", save for celibate priests etc. On a more serious note, the Puritans had no issues with alcohol, in fact beer was a staple of the diet on the Mayflower etc. Anti-alcohol attitudes came later from the Methodists as I understand... --66.72.215.225

See also Christian views of alcohol. --Flex 18:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the wording may be a little clumsy. However, a culture that punished a man for kissing his wife on a Sunday, could quite reasonably be considered an influence on modern U.S. culture [7] --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, more American conservatives linked prohibition and anti-alcohol attitudes with upper-class progressives and feminists. A 2007 book "A Patriot's History of the United states" explains in full detail on an evidence connection between prohibition and 19th century progressives. Puritan elites in America tend to be "upper crust", "educated" and "traditional" in our decision-making of what's our social mores in terms of sexuality, etiquette, business (capitalism over socialism) and nowadays, cultural trends (the Liberal elite's concerns over multiculturalism and environmentalism). + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Beliefs - cleanup

User:Wikipediarules2221 wrote about the Beliefs section:

tagged section for cleanup for grammar reasons-very incoherent and hard to follow sentence structure with lack of correct punctuation and grammar

Do you mean that a few of the sentences are a bit long with too many sub-clauses? If so, someone please get stuck in and change them and remove the tag (I don't have time today, sorry)

If not, please give specifics, or go ahead and correct the punctuation and grammar. Thanks for your vigilance. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The citationistas have gone too far.

A number of contemporary Unitarian congregations also trace their roots back to English and New England Puritan congregations.[citation needed]

Looks out bedroom window at First Parish Unitarian in Plymouth Town Square* If you'd ever set foot in New England you would realise how almost comically absurd it is to add your snarky little citation needed to that sentence. In just about every town centre you have the Green with the town hall, and a UU and/or UCC Congregationalist Church, usually of identical design to down hall with the addition of a steeple. In some towns Universalism (and later Unitarian Universalism) caught on, in others Congregationalism, and in others (like Plymouth) both did and caused a schism in the local church, and so a UU and UCC church stand side by side.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wormwoodpoppies (talk • contribs) 05:21, September 16, 2006

If it is common knowledge, then it should be easy to provide a citation. Have you read [WikiEN-l] insist on sources? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

History 1660 to present day

The Puritan disastifaction with Anglican church included liturgy, doxology, theology. CApitol3 22:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

I think this is an excellent article just as it is, and fail to see why all those tags are at the top!

I suspect that some might be confused because the article does not accord with their preconceptions of "puritans" so they want to know where "their puritans" fit in. But I want to thank you for not caving in to stereotypes! This is a very reality-based article, and I just wish it were longer...Amity150 02:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

hmmm, on second thought, perhaps a paragraph specifically intended to clear up misconceptions, perhaps beginning with "The puritans were not a denomination, but rather a movement which developed within the Church of England." Amity150 02:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I finally decided to remove the "this article is very specialized" tag because it just is not appropriate. (Hope it is legitimate to do that.) This article is actually very broad. Also added a couple of links, to English Dissenters and Independent (religion) that might help some. Don't feel like doing any major rewriting because it already is very good and I can't improve it!Amity150 03:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

To address "confusion"

I changed the introduction in the attempt to summarize the article better. What do you think? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Better. I made a few more changes. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 01:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone is defacing this page

Look in the 2nd paragraph, just under the heading "Terminology". Somebody has added "suk a dick". Could someone who has edit permission please remove that? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.160.141.212 (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Page Defacement

Someone has added offensive text at the start of the article. Also when I clicked on the "----" at the top to understand more about "..signing and dating.." it just says "GAY". I see that there was another report of the defacement since early in January. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.46.199.233 (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

清教徒

It would seem that that's Chinese for 'puritan.' I'm not too sure - my Mandarin is beyond rusty and approaching the intermediary stages of decomposition. If anybody's sure it ain't so, they can always click on the third tab up top and remove it, as Seigenthaler so spectacularly failed to grasp.

Puritan problems!!!

This article needs a re-edit. A lot is ok but it is missing the forest by looking at trees. It discusses history but does not discuss a common puritan ideal in it. It is very much related to some puritan theological beliefs.
Next, Puritan does not equal Presbyterian or just Massachussetts. Only the Quakers and Anabaptists (not normal Baptists) could be considered non-puritan sects in America. The Church of England in America was marginally puritan, but let us not consider that. That means only PA was founded by non-puritans in New England! As for Virginia etc, yes traders, but after the great awakenings, everyone trended more puritan.
Second, This article does not say that the puritans fought with each other as much as with England. They should positioned puritanism closer to a widespread calvinistic conservative movement that sought to christianize the state, purify and reform the church to their ideas, and live in absolute purity. The puritan movement was a coalition to follow what the bible commanded opposed to what the bible forbade. the difference between these two is very great.
Third, the restorationists in the 1800s were not puritans. The Methodists are not either. Yet, the holiness movement and restoration movement may have grown out of old puritan values. Victorians were not puritans but they had very many shared puritan ideas.
The best way of discussing these other groups is the dissolution of the puritan movement into common values and a class system opposed to strictly religious beliefs. These common values were held in America up until prohibition in the 1920s. They fell out of favor also from the postmodernism of the times. A charge is sometimes leveled that America still has puritan values in politics. I would agree in so far as the religious right has adopted a puritan model from their forefathers in this country. 74.237.200.225 18:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

Look a footnote 1. Since when is an AOL member page a real source.

Come on people.

Too long

doncha think? Time to break this up into daughter pages. MarkinBoston 20:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree - What has to happen is the article needs in line citations and that ridiculous "Further reading" list should be culled down to major works. The article is only in the low 40s for size, not that big by current FA standards. -- SECisek 21:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Increase Mather, one of Puritan New England's foremost ministers and scholars, died in 1l723 at his home in Boston. As he lay "feeble and sore broken" upon his death bed, he faced his life's end with desperate "fear and trembling." He was tormented by the thought that he might be bound for Hell. John Tappin died in Boston in 1673 at the age of 18. He, too, suffered bitter spiritual torment in the face of deeath. Although he had been a godly youth, he bemoaned "his hardness of heart and blindness of minde" and feared that he was destined for eternal damnation.

For seventeenth century New Englanders, death was a grim and terrifying reality. Of the first 102 Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth in 1620, half died during the first winter. Death rates soon fell sharply, until they were about a third below those in England, France, or the colonial Chesapeake, but death still remained an omnipresent part of life. The tolling of church bells on the day of funerals was so common that it was legislated against as a public nuisance. It was customary in colonial New England to send a pair of gloves to friends and relatives to invite them to funerals. Andrew Eliot, minister of Boston's North Church, saved the gloves that people sent to him. In 32 years he collected 3,000 pairs.

Death reached into all corners of life, striking people of all ages, not just the old. In the healthiest regions, one child in ten died during the first year of life. In less healthy areas, like Boston, the figure was three in ten. Cotton Mather, the famous Boston minister, had 14 children. Seven died in infancy and just one lived to the age of thirty. Bacterial stomach infections, intestinal worms, epidemic diseases, contaminated food and water, and neglect and carelessness all contributed to a society in which 40 percent of children failed to reached adulthood in the seventeenth century.

Epidemics accounted for a large proportion of deaths--sweeping thousands of people away in the course of a few months. Diphtheria, influenza, measles, pneumonia, scarlet fever, and smallpox ravaged the population, producing death rates as high as 30 per thousand. A smallpox epidemic in Boston in 1677-78 killed one-fifth of the town's population. Many of the individuals who survived a smallpox epidemic were left blind or pockmarked for life. Conflict with Indians also took many lives. One Indian war, the Pequot War of 1675, killed a larger percentage of the population than any later war in American history.

How, then, did Puritans respond to the ever-present reality of death? A deep, underlying tension characterized the Puritan view of death. On the one hand, in line with a long Christian tradition, the Puritans viewed death as a blessed release from the trials of this world into the joys of everlasting life. At the same time, the Puritans regarded death as God's punishment for human sinfulness and on their deathbeds many New Englanders trembled with fear that they might suffer eternal damnation in Hell.

From their earliest upbringing, Puritans were taught to fear death. Ministers terrorized young children with graphic descriptions of Hell and the horrors of eternal damnation and told them that at the Last Judgment their own parents would testify against them. Fear of death was also inculcated by showing young children corpses and public hangings.

Puritans believed that even the youngest child was touched by original sin. As Benjamin Wadsworth put it, "their Hearts naturally, are a meer nest, root, fountain of Sin, and wickedness." Accordingly, young children were continually reminded that their probable destination was Hell. Cotton Mather put the point bluntly: "Go into Burying-Place, CHILDREN; you will there see Graves as short as your selves. Yea, you may be at Play one Hour; Dead, Dead the next." Even their schoolbooks repeatedly reminded Puritan children of the death and Hell: "Tis not likely that you will all live to grow up." "T--Time cuts down all/Both great and small."

Adults, too, looked upon death with foreboding. Puritan theology denied that individuals had any assurance of salvation. God had decided their fate at the time of creation and His will was inscrutable. It was a delusion to think that God in His mercy would forgive their sins and take them to Heaven. Consequently, many Puritans like Increase Mather and John Tappin suffered desperate spiritual torment and anxiety in the face of death.

Since there was nothing that friends or relatives could do to alter the fate of a dying Puritan, there was no place in Puritan New England for expensive and elaborate religious rites or ceremonies. Funeral sermons offered no individual eulogies for the dead and funeral monuments were kept plain and simple. The first grave markers were wooden and early grave stones contained words but no designs because the Puritans thought that the Second Commandment prohibited the use of graven images. Elaborate funerals or headstones seemed like idolatry. (The original headstones faced east, so that on the morning of the Day of Resurrection, the bodies will respectfully face their Holy Father).

Gradually, the stark Puritan view of death softened. After 1l650 Puritan funerals became increasingly elaborate and expensive and tombstones less plain. Corpses began to be embalmed in order to allow time for families to plan funerals and for guests to gather. Especially after the Great Awakening--the intense religious revival that swept the American colonies beginning in the 1720s--attitudes toward death began to change. Where, in the seventeenth century, children were told to fear death, they were increasingly told in the eighteenth century look forward to death as a reunion with God and their parents. Adults, in turn, were increasingly assured that a life of active piety assured salvation.

In cemeteries, which were now described as "dormitories," winged cherubs replaced the grisly death's heads and winged skulls that marked early Puritan graves. Republican symbols--such as urns and willows--began to appear in graveyards after the American revolution and the discovery of the archaeological remains at Pompeii. The wording on gravestones also changed--reflecting a dramatic transformation in American views of death. Instead of saying, "Here lies buried the body of," inscriptions began to read, "here rests the soul of," suggesting that while the corporeal body might decay the soul survived. Death was increasingly regarded as merely a temporary separation of loved ones.

Puritanism and Personal Spirituality

I don't see this aspect emphasised in the article. Surely, the basic difference between puritanism and the established church was its emphasis upon the personal relationship of the individual with God, as opposed to the idea of God's grace mediated through institutional sacraments and ceremonies. It all flows from that - the key role of the individual spiritual crisis and conversion, the possible notion of a predestined elect, the rejection and dislike of ceremonies, the importance of sermons as a stimulant to self examination, and much more besides.

And what about the by-products of this religious approach? The growth in the status of women. The protestant work ethic (c/f. R.H. Tawney). The development of individual diaries. The idea of the independent congregation, and the necessity of religious toleration. All these deserve to be explored.

It is also crucial to distinguish between colonial and English puritanism. The former often developed into theocracies that were unknown in England, leading to instances of intolerance and persecution. Puritanism in England failed to establish a national church, as Cromwell and the New Model Army were in favour of a wide variety of independent religious groups. It developed into examples of political and social radicalism.

--Train guard (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A new external link source for puritan literature to add to the foot of the page

Please see http://www.book-academy.co.uk/commentaries/puritans.html 88.107.3.10 (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Pilgrims

The Pilgrims got a charter for Virgina from the King of England. They finally ended up in New England due to the weather on sea. To make their settlement legitimate they ratified the Mayflower Compact while still being on board.

Introduction to include Protestant?

I have removed Protestant from the first sentence of the introduction to the article because I contend its use is part of a non-NPOV. As Puritans understood themselves in the 16th century --and many well into the 17th century-- to be a part of the Church of England, whose archbishops during the 16th century and indeed until the rise of distinctly Anglican Protestant theology in the Church later in the 17th century considered it a part of the Catholic Church not in communion with Rome (and this is still the interpretation of the Anglo-Catholic element within the Church). Quissett (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree quite strongly. In my opinion, the most authoritative source on this topic is Anthony Milton's Catholic and Reformed: The Roman and Protestant Churches in English Protestant Thought, 1600-1640 (Cambridge University Press, 1995), which is an exhaustive study of English attitudes towards both the Roman Catholic Church and the continental Reformed churches in the period 1600-1640. Professor Milton clearly demonstrates that ca. 1600, most leaders in the Church of England - and certainly anyone whom historians would consider a "Puritan" - thought that the pope was the Antichrist and that the Church of Rome was an anti-church. And, in fact, when Bishop Hall in 1628 published The Old Religion, in which he said in passing that the Church of Rome was "a True Visible Church", many prominent Puritans (e.g. Henry Burton - wrote tracts denouncing Hall. (See Catholic and Reformed, pp. 141f.)

With all due respect to Quissett, I think it's simply incorrect to say that the 16th-century archbishops considered themselves to be members of the Catholic Church who weren't in communion with Rome. And it's certainly incorrect to say that they wouldn't have considered themselves Protestant. Now, it is true that Hooker worked out his via media theory in the 1580s, but that theory was clearly a minority opinion until the Laudian Ascendancy of the 1630s. It would be anachronistic to say that either the bishops or the Puritans in the late-sixteenth, early-seventeenth century wouldn't have thought of themselves as Protestant. I'm not aware of any serious scholar in the field (e.g. the aforementioned Anthony Milton, Patrick Collinson, Peter Lake, Nicholas Tyacke, the Catholic "revisionist" historians Christopher Haigh and Eamon Duffy) who would argue that the leaders of the Church of England or the Puritans didn't consider themselves Protestant.

So, on that basis, I think that that non-NPOV challenge is simply wrong, and I'm going to revert the page. If there are scholars in the field who agree with Quissett, I'd love to know about them, since I do try to keep up on my seventeenth century Church of England historiography. But until I have some evidence that there is ANY scholar who disagrees on this point, I think that it is totally NPOV to describe the Puritans as Protestant.

Adam_sk (talk) 07:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Could someone literate edit the article please

The opening sentence includes the following, "...was an associate of any number of religious groups advocating for more "purity" of..." Can someone who has edit access, and who cares about the language, please clean that up. It hurts to read it. Hint: start by getting rid of the "for" from "...advocating for more...", but also consider rewriting the whole sentence. I didn't get beyond the first paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe the Ben Franklin story

I've studied American religious history for years, and have NEVER heard of that story with Ben Franklin's lightning rod. At the very least it needs a cite. Ben Franklin also followed the original Puritans by at least 100+ years, and his era was much more marked by Great Awakening Calvinism than the Calvinism of the "Pilgrams". Twohlford (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the first two paragraphs from this section. The Ben Franklin part seems demonstrably false as he was not a student of Cotton Mather(although he did read one of his books), he was not a Puritan and associating Franklin's mid-to-late 1700s accomplishments with a religious movement of the 1500-1600s seems a stretch at best. Similarly, the First Great Awakening ended approximately 20 years before the start of the Revolution, was not sourced and as such its claims of undoubted inspiration and fervor seems weakly supported at best.PantsB (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Last sentence of Belief

sentence reads "Puritans believed satan was of the netherworld." Its unsourced and, if correct, could certainly be better placed than its current position as a disconnected sentence at the end of a major section of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobaboy007 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wordly Saints

I highly recommend the excellent book by Leland Ryken, "Worldly Saints: The Puritans As They Really Were". The Puritans, as my Jewish pastor says, have "gotten a bum rap." While Ryken certainly does not gloss over the Puritans' faults (he includes a chapter entitled, "Learning From Negative Example: Some Puritan Faults"), you get a very different picture of them than we have been led to believe. Ryken covers everything from work to marriage and sex, money, family, Puritan preaching, church and worship, the Bible, education, and social action. He clears up many misconceptions of the Puritans, and ends the book on "The Genius of Puritanism: What the Puritans did Best". Ryken includes 52 pages of sources for his book.

Regarding sex and marriage, I am glad to see that this Wikipedia article notes a bit more of an accurate view of sex held by the Puritans than our culture has been fed. As Ryken notes: "The Catholic attitudes of the Middle Ages provide the necessary background against which we must understand the Puritan view of sex and marriage. In general, the Puritans affirmed what the Catholics denied and denied what the Catholics had traditionally affirmed. Many of the Puritan pronouncements, in fact, occurred in head-to-head debates with the Catholics." Ryken adds: "The Puritan doctrine of sex was a watershed in the cultural history of the West. The Puritans devalued celibacy, glorified companionate marriage, affirmed married sex as both necessary and pure, established the ideal of wedded romantic love, and exalted the role of the wife." Ryken notes that "When a New England wife complained, first to her pastor and then to the whole congregation, that her husband was neglecting their sex life, the church proceeded to excommunicate the man."

Ryken also includes a chapter on the Puritans' faults ("Learning from Negative Example: Some Puritan Faults"). One of the "faults" of the Puritans was their tendency to long-windedness. "They harangue long and very learnedly.....their longsomeness is woeful." (Robert Baillie) Ryken notes that "The characteristic Puritan style.....is to take at least twice as many words as necessary to express a thought....the Puritans seemed to search for ways to say everything at least twice in different words."

Other Puritan faults include their many rules -- too many rules, and an "inadequate view of recreation." They also engaged in what Ryken calls "too much pious moralizing" and had a tendency to male chauvinism and partisanship, as well as "insensitivity to the religious feelings of other groups." But how are these characteristics different from many groups today?

Among the Puritan traits of what they did best, Ryken emphasizes their "God-centered life", "seeing God in the Commonplace", getting back to basics, and “living in a spirit of expectancy." There is also the "practical impulse in Puritanism", i.e., that the "mark of true Christianity was that it made a difference in how people actually lived."

And we should not forget the Puritan emphasis on education. The Puritans were "advocates for education" and defended "learning against anti-intellectualism". The Puritans had an "aversion to ignorance" and emphasized "the centraility of the Bible in the curriculum". As Ryken notes, "The Puritan theory of education was a wonderfully unified and integrated whole. It combined God's special and natural revelations, the Bible and human knowledge, faith and reason. The curriculum included both theology and the arts and sciences, both the Bible and the classics. The goals of education were similarly comprehensive. They included both piety and knowledge, both becoming like God and preparing to do all things well in daily life in the world." In sum, as Samuel Willard summed up, "The word of God and rule of religion teach us, not to destroy but to improve every faculty that is in us.....to the glory of God who gave them to us." --JeanneMarieT. (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC) JeanneMarieT. (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by JeanneMarieT. (talk • contribs) 13:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Anabaptist

eat butt suckers Is there a reason why there is no active link from this excellent page to the Anabaptist page? I don't know enough about the subject, but if there was a link it would confirm that the Anabaptists referred to were the same as the ones Anabaptist page. Also, the style of this page seems to be to explicit link from a singular noun to a page that is a singular noun as a title.

--KHanger (talk) 08:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Anglicanism Calvinist?

There is no scource for this statement, this is a point of view and is not valid,the statements on Anglicansim should be changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfcongeredwards (talk • contribs) 16:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"The Puritan spirit in the United States" sectio: forst paragraph, last sentence — semantic error

<quote>"Because of these beliefs, the Puritans publicly punished drunkenness and sexual relations outside of marriage, as do Christians."</quote> Aren't Puritans a type of Christian? Doensn't "as do Christians" make no logical sense? --Ptharien's Flame (Alexanderaltman) 04:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Puritanical should be discussed here, too.

I have read of the usage of "puritanical" versus "puritan". "Puritanical" links to the current article. I have seen the word "puritanical" used to describe other non-puritan sects. Carlos Fuentes (El Espejo Enterrado - The Buried Mirror, p. 302) makes reference to "a strict puritanism" that coexisted during the 17th century Spanish colonial epoch in the Americas with more relaxed interpretations of Christianity. This was, of course, within Catholic philosophies that reacted against the libertine movement brought on by the Renaissance. So, my question to the writer(s) of this article is: You mention some parallels of Puritanism to Early Catholic thought (perhaps mystics like St. John of the Cross), but did the Puritanism start with protestants or was it a movement that started within the Catholic Church, become unsupported and then moved outward with Calvinists, Lutherans, Knox followers, etc., but that puritanism was also in the Catholic, Orthodox and other high churches?

This is not a commentary on the topic, as it is a request for further development of the article. I came here seeking clarification from Fuentes' book, where he mentions puritanism within the Catholic society of Spanish Colonial America (as separate from English America or even Anglican America) and all I read is a commentary that it started with Puritans, Calvinists, etc. I think it is a more generic movement than just within Protestant circles. Consider the Opus Dei!

Thanks for reading. That's all I wanted. 201.230.187.153 (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Far as I know, the term was not used before the founding of Anglicanism, nor was this name used at the time among Catholics, for their own opinions or those of other Catholics. Perhaps the modern author was applying the term in a modern sense: descriptively or even metaphorically. Does he quote its use among 17th century Catholics? Jim.henderson (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

why is there no talk how this article is about superstitous cults arguing between themselves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.43.46 (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Calvinism

The whole section "Beliefs" is about Calvinism. Is Puritanism equivalent to Calvanism? If so, that should be made very clear at the beginning of the article. I thought that the Puritans broke away from the Church of England.[User:Lestrade|Lestrade]] (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Lestrade,

It seems that the whole article is inadequately sourced. I noticed quite a number of questionable statements on a quick browse. It probably needs reconstruction, with dogmatic assertions replaced by proper discussions of terminology. Some basic points, for example the distinction between what can be said about clerical Puritanism, and lay Puritans (a much vaguer notion), seem to be missing. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have edited the lead and "Background" section to add more historical landmarks (which were mostly lacking), and to clarify the reasonable points made. The rest of the seems to have a remarkable amount of pure assertion. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

In repy to I thought that the Puritans broke away from the Church of England. No - the Puritans wanted to prify the church from within & saw in the New World an opportunity to create a perfect model for the church which could be re-exported back to the mother country. The puritans (and the pilgrims) would not have described themselves at the time as followers of John Calvin (although he was greatly admired), because they honestly believed that they were interpreting the Bible themselves. However, with the benefit of historical hindsight, their way of interpreting the Bible must be called Calvinist.216.107.194.166 (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Southerns hated obedience to God and Hard Work

I removed The traditional American Southern view alleges that the Puritan ethic was at root the cause of the Civil War.^{[citation needed]} In this view, the South resisted Puritan intolerant aggression with mainstream Reformed Christianity. Owing to Puritan beliefs that emphasize the individual's autonomous interpretation of Scripture, separation from mainstream Christianity, and that economic success suggested God's blessings, the traditional Southerner attributed the regional conflict to the greed of the Northern ("Yankee") Puritan mindset, which believed it was more righteous than others. If a reliable sources for the main points in this paragraph can be found it can be put back. But it is difficult to believe that to love and obey god, and to work hard were ideas so repugnant to the South they would go to war. Reformed Christianity is Calvinist and Congregationalists are pretty much the mainstream. Both Presbyterian (also Calvinist) and Baptists were widespread in the South and both emphasize the individual's autonomous interpretation of Scripture. Nitpyck (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that it doesn't talk about the persecution of Quakers, I was just there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Religious_Society_of_Friends#Persecution_in_the_New_World) and there seems to be some inconsistency between the two article 75.61.69.42 (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Dakota

Well in England they were only in power during Cromwell's Commonwealth and I have no idea if they were harder on Quakers then any other religious group they disagreed with. I do know they allowed the Jews back into England. As far as New England goes there is nearly nothing about the theocracy and how it worked and what it allowed and prohibited. In fact a lot of this article is based on a misunderstanding of the NE Puritans. Two examples- they did not disprove of either alcohol or sex. But please BE BOLD, go ahead and add info about the persecution of religious groups by Puritans and add a link to History of the Religious Society of Friends.Nitpyck (talk) 05:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Request advice about the Puritans in this template

See Template:17th Century Scholasticism

1. Is this correct? Were the Puritans against scholastic theology? I am of the impression, given their emphasis on obedience and morals, that the Puritans were analogous to the Pietists. 2. Is this a good fit for the Puritans article?

Thanks.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

There are works of Puritan authors that fit into "early modern scholasticism", certainly. It is important to be clear what is being said, though. The systematic development of a (Protestant) theological system is often enough called "scholastic", as a matter of style, while not having anything in common with scholastic theology. See Ramism for where this fits in, for example. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. Taking into account what you said, I removed Puritans from the template. It seems to me that their feud with scholastic Anglicans had nothing to do with the scholastic method, but instead their theology and polity. I've added in the Ramists as an example of Calvinist scholasticism, although it seems to me that there are more analytical and/or synthetic method scholastics among the Calvinists. However, I'm not aware of any Wikipedia articles that describe them.

As for what is being said in this template, well, I am looking for analogs to the high scholasticism of the Lutherans and the Jesuits. Ramism is closer to early Lutheran scholasticism, but in the absence of an article showcasing the scholasticism of Beza et. al., I think it will fit. I am not interested in labeling anything remotely orthodox as scholastic. Instead, I am looking for theological systems that utilized philosophical categories to express themselves.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you are right about Theodore Beza. He is on the pro-Aristotle side of the Calvinist theologians, where (roughly) the Ramists were trying to displace the Aristotle tradition with something of their own; I suppose Gerardus Vossius would be another representative of the 'continuity'. From what I happen to have been reading recently, it's a complicated discussion, given that the Lutheran roots in later medieval theology are more serious than the Calvinist roots which are closer to Erasmus. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Demonology

I'm cutting off-topic statements and simplifying some sentences in this section. Feel free to undo me if you disagree. ^Thomas Edwards used witchcraft as an analogy for heresy. ^Puritans took a non-literal view of the Harrowing of Hell unlike others in COE

That's OK for keeping the "demonic" issue in perspective. The other material on the "Descensus" is serious enough to have in some form. History of the Puritans goes to town on many points - but actually omits this one. Ideally all the generalisations get backed up with historical evidence here - much work. I'm initially looking for the issues where one can put names and dates to views. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Were the Separatists Puritans?

There seems to be some confusion on Wikipedia re: the difference (or not) between Puritans and Separatists.

The post reformation Church of England devolved into 3 camps (not discrete - there was a lot of flow of ideas between the camps). These camps or views were:

The 'conformists' or those who believed in retaining the existing church structures.
The 'puritans' who believed that the church should be reformed from within (they wanted to purify the national church by eliminating every shred of Catholic influence - they also believed that they had the duty to direct national affairs according to God's will as revealed in the Bible.)
The 'non conformist' separatists who believed that the church should not be centrally organized & that each congregation should organize and worship according to their own conscience.

In England in the mid 17th Century, (from around 1625 to 1660) the puritans gained the upper hand, particularly during and following the English Civil War, but with the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, the puritan clergy were expelled under the 'Act of Uniformity'. They were not therefore voluntary separatists, but were induced to found seperate churches and truly become 'non-conformists'. May former puritans remained with the church - the impact of this can still be seen today with the Church of Englands 'High Church' and 'Low Church'

In Wikipedia writings on the Pilgrims (or at least the 'Saints' amongst the Pilgrims), the word Puritan and Pilgrim are often interchanged freely. I would argue that historical accounts are not best served in this way - I'm sure the Scrooby 'saints' would be surprised that they were equated with the 'puritans'. The 'saints' shared many of the beliefs of the Puritans, but unlike the pilgrims (by this I mean the 'saints', not the 'strangers' who also sailed on the Mayflower & settled with them), the Puritans who traveled to Massachusetts in 1630 were not separatists. The Puritan heart was to stay with the system, to work with it, and and change it from within. Rather than trying to flee persecution & intolerance, the Puritans had another reason for supporting the English colonies in the New World. They hoped to establish in New England a pure church that would offer a model for the church in England. This, they believed, would redeem and reform English society on both continents, and turn things around for the better.

As an aside, why when the power base in England had shifted to the puritans, it is perceieved that the migrants to the new world were being persecuted? Their numbers included some of the wealthiest in England who were very much part of the establishment. The colonies were sanctioned and supported by the government of the day. I can see the argument for fleeing persecution and intolerance being true for later migration (post 1660) but not for the original foundation of the Massachusetts colony in 1630.216.107.194.166 (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm not aware of any definitive, satisfactory definition of "Puritan". It seems that when James I used it in his writings, it did mean only separatists, such as the Brownists. Therefore this article includes separatists within its scope, explaining something about the issue in the section on terminology.

As for the New England situation, I would agree that the statements that the colonists were all victims of religious persecution are not very helpful. The colonies were never supported directly by the government, though; in the late 1630s there was support of Saybrook in particular by a group who became very important in Parliament by 1641, but that was the point at which emigration eased off. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The term 'Nonconformists' - as used in the seventeenth century - were not 'separatists' but rather Church of England ministers who refused to conform to the Roman Catholic elements remaining within the Church of England. Nonconformists may have been deprived of the ability to take a living in the Church of England (and thus became school teachers or chaplains to aristocratic supporters) but did not form their own break away congregations like separatists did. Most of the anti-separatist writing of the seventeenth century was written by nonconformists who accused the Separatists of false pride and of abandoning the remnant of the godly within the Church of England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.207.251 (talk) 08:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Picture of Mayflower??

There is an illustration of the Mayflower but no mention of the Pilgrims anywhere in the article. Should the picture and its caption be removed?

Cbmccarthy (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a huge choice at Commons. I have replaced it by a portrait. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

hello guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.110.109.254 (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The demise of the Puritans

This article would benefit from a brief discussion on the demise of the Puritans. Few (anyone?) today self-identify as a practicing Puritans and certainly we are not required to attend Meeting on the Sabbath as was the case in New England. It would be informative to know what became of the movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.124.153 (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The detailed history is at History of the Puritans from 1649. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree it would be infinitely more clear would this article make it clear on where to look next for the continuing history. I don't find the "main article" links very instructive that the demise of the Puritans would be at that link. This article should have at least a short paragraph discussing their demise.Wjhonson (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Cite examples of incorrect usage of Puritan

<quote>The designation "Puritan" is often incorrectly used, notably based on the assumption that hedonism and puritanism are antonyms</quote>

That took me by surprise, I haven't noticed this. It's a statement that really needs examples I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voigty (talk • contribs) 15:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It may need a citation. I don't see that it needs examples. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"City on a Hill"

You must keep in mine when studying the Puritans that they believed that they were on a mission for God and that everything they did was to create a "City on a Hill" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.251.81.222 (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Government

Because the Puritans in New England established a theocracy with features that were to evolve into the current governing structures in NE today, there should be a section about how it worked. I find that words like freeman, commonman, selectman, assistant, duputy, General Court, etc. are not well defined in Wikipedia. There just does not seem to be a good article on the subject of early colonial goverment in the US, and I think the government of the Puritans in NE is important to understanding their whole society. --Ishtar456 (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The Pequot War and Old Testament Practices

In the Pequot War the Puritans slaughtered and mutilated Pequot Indians believing they were doing God's service. The Puritans adopted old testament theology as justification for their killings. Killing and converting were acceptable to the Puritans. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The Demise of the Puritans - Puritans Today?

If there are communities self-identifying themselves as practicing "Puritans" today, especially in Britain, I'd like to know any web-resources where any contact might be found. Any? 195.50.1.122 (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Whitewash

Why has almost all mention of the Netherlands been left out of all the Puritan articles? That was a major episode that had an enduring influence on the Dutch and helped to harden the intolerance of the Puritans. Censoring all of that information, it was once here in good detail, is like pulling out everything about the Sermon on the Mount from Jesus articles. What horsepucky. --71.186.133.37 (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source that would support inclusion of the data, please feel free to add it to the article. TN X Man 15:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't make any sense...

I think who ever changed the page to say this needs to be banned:

They were blocked from changing the system from within, but their dinos were taken by the nazi zombies to the Netherlands and later New England, and by evangelical clergy to Ireland and later into Wales, and were spread into lay society by preaching and parts of the educational system, particularly certain colleges of the University of Cambridge.

It's in the first section, second paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.94.164 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 20 September 2011‎

The vandalism as removed. mabdul 17:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Social Consequences and Family Life

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hello, I would like to edit this section of the Puritan article by adding further information surrounding the importance of Puritan marriage, Puritan motherhood, and the complex yet related relationships between husband and wife, parents and children, masters and servants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meljo.adams (talk • contribs) 13:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Please say what should be change to what. Also provide a reliable source. mabdul 17:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is the puritan statement of belief not mentioned on this page?

This page includes no mention of the name Jesus Christ - a person whom is utterly central to puritanism itself. This is a serious flaw. If I'm not mistaken Puritans believed in salvation through Christ alone, not through personal holiness or other such things. This article mentions salvation twice and I am fairly certain each of them are flawed as well.

~20 May 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragstorighteous (talk • contribs) 12:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Historiography

"The conception of a Protestant work ethic, identified more closely with Calvinist or Puritan principles, has been criticised at its root, mainly as a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy aligning economic success with a narrow religious scheme." The passive construction of this sentence leaves it unclear in meaning. Are there sources that can be cited for this criticism, or can the nature of the criticism be expanded upon? Is this perhaps referring to Weber, or critics of Weber? Canuklsa (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Add more on important Puritan figures in history

By adding a section to the Puritan Wikipedia page about "Prominent Puritan Figures" I will be able to add more about Anne Bradstreet and the criticism that was written about her poems. By adding her poems with criticism,it will show how she was an important writer in history and was also a Puritan woman. I will be using an Early American Literature article that talks more about this. There is also another article called "The Influence of Anne Bradstreet's Innovative Errors" that goes into detail about Bradstreet being a feminist figure in American Literature. Along with Bradstreet, I found articles that explain how John Winthrop contributed to what America's government stands on today, love and Christianity. This can show how he was also an important Puritan writer as well. I will be supporting this claim with an article titled "Christian Love and the Foundation of American Politics". Agard5 (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I added the section on "Prominent Puritan Figures" and created a bullet point of Anne Bradstreet and John Winthrop quoting and linking their actual Wikipedia pages. I added a brief description on why they are famous people. I will be doing the edits with criticism on their actual pages, which is why they are linked. Agard5 (talk) 09:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

God's Law in the Bbile

Reference to God's Law in the Bible was sourced in the oldid bversion 891273434, substituted by @Ltwin: with a more reliable one which is listed in bibliography. At page 177 it says: "Puritans were inspired by access to the Bible in their own tongue...they were to be lights to lead others to their biblical truths...there was no one person or body laying out the central meaning but that the movement resulted from a multitude of interactions between individuals and groups of believers helps to explain the variety of puritanism".

Puritans were focused on their individual experience of the grace of God and on the collective government of the Church. There exists a further consideration for the current statement: "Puritans believed it was the government's responsibility to enforce moral standards and ensure true religious worship was established and maintained". It can be added a reference to God's Will or God's Law in the Bible by which Puritans edified their fellow believers.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)