# Continental reformed vs. Puritan reformed



## CanuckPuritan24

I'm wondering if there are any great differences or different emphasis in theology between that practiced by the Puritans and which was practiced on the European continent during the same time? I suppose the sum of my question is how historically similar is puritan theology to Continental reformed theology?

Thanks

I hope this is the right forum for this question.


----------



## wsw201

If you compare the Westminster Standards to the 3 Forms of Unity, there's not a dimes worth of difference. Some have argued that the Continental Reformed had a different view of worship versus the Puritans and the RPW but R. Scott Clark, a URC pastor and prof. at WSC, has noted that there really is no difference.


----------



## dannyhyde

sirhicks said:


> Is there a difference on the Sabbath?



Keeping in mind that all Reformed confessions were written in their own context and for their own purposes, we see that the "differences" are not in substance, but in emphasis. The men's fellowship of my parish is going through _Reformed Confessions Harmonized_ and I posted a few words about this here.

When one looks at Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 103 and compares it to Westminster Larger Catechism, Q&A 115–121, this is shown.

The emphasis in the HC is on attendance at public worship as well as the eschatological aspect of the Sabbath day.

The emphasis in the WLC is on the day of the Sabbath (116) and the duty of resting that day (117–121).

Yet, the HC also speaks of "the day of rest," albeit in passing, while the WLC also mentions public worship, especially in Q&A 117.

Finally, any doubts about whether the so-called "Continental" view of the Sabbath is in any way less strict than the English view are laid to rest by the Synod of Dort's doctrinal deliverance (things the Synod of the churches declares that are binding on all the churches) of its 164th session on May 17, 1619:

_1. There is in the fourth commandment of the divine law a ceremonial and a moral element.
2. The ceremonial element is the rest of the seventh day after creation, and the strict observance of that day imposed especially on the Jewish people.
3. The moral element consists in the fact that a certain definite day is set aside for worship and so much rest as is needful for worship and hallowed meditation.
4. The Sabbath of the Jews having been abolished, the day of the Lord must be solemnly hallowed by Christians.
5. Since the times of the apostles this day has always been observed by the old catholic church.
6. This day must be so consecrated to worship that on that day we rest from all servile works, except those which charity and present necessity require; and also from all such recreations as interfere with worship._ (Cited in Howard B. Spaan, _Christian Reformed Church Government_ [Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1968], 208.)


----------



## Guido's Brother

In the time of the Puritans, there was an equivalent movement in the Netherlands known as the Nadere Reformatie (pronounced, "Nader Reformatsy"). There was a lot of sharing of ideas and there were translations of each others' works and so on. Several figures, including William Ames (Amesius), went back and forth across the North Sea.


----------



## dannyhyde

CanuckPuritan24 said:


> I'm wondering if there are any great differences or different emphasis in theology between that practiced by the Puritans and which was practiced on the European continent during the same time? I suppose the sum of my question is how historically similar is puritan theology to Continental reformed theology?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> I hope this is the right forum for this question.



Josiah,

Keep an eye on my blog, as the men's fellowship of my parish is currently reading through _Reformed Confessions Harmonized_ and I will be posting thoughts on the unity and diversity in the Reformed confessions.

Part 1 of the series can be found here.


----------



## MW

dannyhyde said:


> Keeping in mind that all Reformed confessions were written in their own context and for their own purposes, we see that the "differences" are not in substance, but in emphasis. The men's fellowship of my parish is going through _Reformed Confessions Harmonized_ and I posted a few words about this here.
> 
> When one looks at Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 103 and compares it to Westminster Larger Catechism, Q&A 115–121, this is shown.
> 
> The emphasis in the HC is on attendance at public worship as well as the eschatological aspect of the Sabbath day.
> 
> The emphasis in the WLC is on the day of the Sabbath (116) and the duty of resting that day (117–121).
> 
> Yet, the HC also speaks of "the day of rest," albeit in passing, while the WLC also mentions public worship, especially in Q&A 117.
> 
> Finally, any doubts about whether the so-called "Continental" view of the Sabbath is in any way less strict than the English view are laid to rest by the Synod of Dort's doctrinal deliverance (things the Synod of the churches declares that are binding on all the churches) of its 164th session on May 17, 1619:
> 
> _1. There is in the fourth commandment of the divine law a ceremonial and a moral element.
> 2. The ceremonial element is the rest of the seventh day after creation, and the strict observance of that day imposed especially on the Jewish people.
> 3. The moral element consists in the fact that a certain definite day is set aside for worship and so much rest as is needful for worship and hallowed meditation.
> 4. The Sabbath of the Jews having been abolished, the day of the Lord must be solemnly hallowed by Christians.
> 5. Since the times of the apostles this day has always been observed by the old catholic church.
> 6. This day must be so consecrated to worship that on that day we rest from all servile works, except those which charity and present necessity require; and also from all such recreations as interfere with worship._ (Cited in Howard B. Spaan, _Christian Reformed Church Government_ [Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1968], 208.)



Very good!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Guido's Brother said:


> In the time of the Puritans, there was an equivalent movement in the Netherlands known as the Nadere Reformatie (pronounced, "Nader Reformatsy"). There was a lot of sharing of ideas and there were translations of each others' works and so on. Several figures, including William Ames (Amesius), went back and forth across the North Sea.



This is very true and serves as a reminder of the international scope of the (first and) second reformation. Ames and others from the UK and elsewhere were consulted at the Synod of Dordt, an international Synod which received the approbation of Puritans on the other side of the channel. The Netherlands served as a place of refuge for many English/Scottish Puritans and Covenanters. Matthew Poole died in Amsterdam. The _Nadere Reformatie_ shared the same devotional piety and doctrinal integrity as the English/Scottish/New England Puritan movement. I rate the leaders of the _Nadere Reformatie_ among my heroes of the faith. The Scottish General Assembly acknowledged its bonds to their Contintental brethren and expressed its desire for broader reformation in this 1644 letter.

There are some differences, however. Often overlooked in current discussions is the Second Helvetic Confession which is a wonderful document, except that it teaches the lawfulness of ecclesiastical calendar days (ie., man-made holy days), with which, for example, Turretin agreed, though the Westminster divines said otherwise (see Westminster Directory of Public Worship); Jacobus Koelman and Wilhelmus a'Brakel agreed with Westminster. This is both a second and fourth commandment issue, which shows a divergence of Continental and English/Scottish/New England Puritan views. Koelman decried the observance of St. Nicholas day and the widespread profantion of the Lord's Day in the Netherlands (not unique to the Netherlands by any means). The earlier Dutch synods promoted exclusive psalmody (commended by Wilhelmus a'Brakel; see also Ted Postma, _Psalmody Through the Ages_ on this subject), as did the Westminster Assembly; the 1619 Synod of Dordt allowed for some non-canonical songs to be sung in public worship.

Koelman went on to state his opinion of how the Continental creeds stood in relation to Westminster:



VirginiaHuguenot said:


> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ... it's also worth quoting Jacobus Koelman (1632-1695) (there is a good article about him in the November 2005 _The Outlook_), the Dutch Reformed minister who wrote a well-known book called _The Duties of Parents_ in which he said (p. 31 of the Reformation Heritage Books edition):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The catechisms composed by others have served me as aids and guides. The reason why in this process I do not follow so much the Heidelberg Catechism as I do the Westminster Shorter Catechism of England, Scotland, and Ireland is simply that the latter is in all respects superior. For why should we not honestly acknowledge such an obvious truth? It would be good if the church of The Netherlands would be willing to learn and take over a variety of things from the churches in England and Scotland, things which they formulated in their church order and other formularies more clearly in accordance with God´s Word than our church has done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 12-10-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> I read a comparison chart which looked the doctrinal emphases of Calvin's Genevan Catechism, the HC, the WSC and the WLC recently (all of which have a different number of questions and answers). It was interesting to see that 24% of the HC is devoted to the person and work of Christ compared to 13% of the WLC. And 18% of the HC is devoted to the law of God while 30% of the WLC covers that topic. And just 4% of the HC is devoted to the doctrine of the church while 13% of the WLC addresses that topic. These emphases complement one another as a whole.
> 
> Edited on 12-12-2005 VirginiaHuguenot
> ...
> The chart that I referenced appears in the introduction to J.G. Vos' The Westminster Larger Catechism: A Commentary, edited by G.I. Williamson, which is entitled An Introduction to the Westminster Larger Catechism by W. Robert Godfrey. This piece also appeared as "The Westminster Larger Catechism," chapter 6 in To Glorify and Enjoy God: A Commemoration of the 350th Anniversary of the Westminster Assembly, edited by John L. Carson and David W. Hall.
> 
> Posted on 20-12-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot


----------



## ADKing

dannyhyde said:


> [Finally, any doubts about whether the so-called "Continental" view of the Sabbath is in any way less strict than the English view are laid to rest by the Synod of Dort's doctrinal deliverance (things the Synod of the churches declares that are binding on all the churches) of its 164th session on May 17, 1619:
> 
> _1. There is in the fourth commandment of the divine law a ceremonial and a moral element.
> _


_

Just for the record, (I hope this is not diverting the thread by becoming too minute) the later and Puritand doctrine of the Sabbath as exressed in the WCF, WLC, would not agree with this point. The later English Puritans denied that the 4th commandment was at all ceremonial. It is wholly moral. 

Question 116: What is required in the fourth commandment?

Answer: The fourth commandment requires of all men the sanctifying or keeping holy to God such set times as he has appointed in his Word, expressly one whole day in seven; which was the seventh from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, and the first day of the week ever since, and so to continue to the end of the world; which is the Christian sabbath, and in the New Testament called the Lord's day.


According to the mature English Puritan doctrine, the 4th commandment requires the set proportion of one whole day in seven. The 4th commandment itself does not specify a particular day. The day itself is not inherently moral, but it is not specified in the 4th commandment. 

Although I agree that the difference sounds small, I think the Puritans and the WCF have a tighter case, exegetically and practically. It is difficult business unwinding supposedly ceremonial and moral elements in the 10 commandments themselves! Practically, I agree that the use of the Sabbath was much closer between them back then, than the so called "continental" view today which is usually an excuse for Sabbath breaking in my experience._


----------



## MW

ADKing said:


> Just for the record, (I hope this is not diverting the thread by becoming too minute) the later and Puritand doctrine of the Sabbath as exressed in the WCF, WLC, would not agree with this point. The later English Puritans denied that the 4th commandment was at all ceremonial. It is wholly moral.



I wonder if this is not simply a matter of perspective, and whether it can be seen in earlier and later presentations. Whilst defending the perpetuity of the Sabbath, it would be necessary to distinguish what is moral and what is ceremonial. But once it has been shown that the Sabbath is perpetual then the sanctification of the Sabbath would be considered wholly moral.


----------



## KMK

armourbearer said:


> Whilst defending the perpetuity of the Sabbath, it would be necessary to distinguish what is moral and what is ceremonial. But once it has been shown that the Sabbath is perpetual then the sanctification of the Sabbath would be considered wholly moral.



Fascinating line of reasoning. Could you elaborate?


----------



## dannyhyde

ADKing said:


> dannyhyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Finally, any doubts about whether the so-called "Continental" view of the Sabbath is in any way less strict than the English view are laid to rest by the Synod of Dort's doctrinal deliverance (things the Synod of the churches declares that are binding on all the churches) of its 164th session on May 17, 1619:
> 
> _1. There is in the fourth commandment of the divine law a ceremonial and a moral element.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> Just for the record, (I hope this is not diverting the thread by becoming too minute) the later and Puritand doctrine of the Sabbath as exressed in the WCF, WLC, would not agree with this point. The later English Puritans denied that the 4th commandment was at all ceremonial. It is wholly moral. _
Click to expand...

_

Adam,

Dort goes on to explain which aspects of the Sabbath were moral and ceremonial:

1. There is in the fourth commandment of the divine law a *ceremonial* and a moral element.
2. The *ceremonial* element is the *rest of the seventh day after creation*, and the *strict observance of that day imposed especially on the Jewish people*.
3. The moral element consists in the fact that a certain definite day is set aside for worship and so much rest as is needful for worship and hallowed meditation.

This seems to me to be saying what WLC 116 says. What is ceremonial is the seventh day. WLC 116 says this in essence, as from creation to the resurrection the Sabbath was the seventh day, while after the resurrection is the first day. As well, the language of "strict observance...imposed on the Jewish people" is echoing the language of the Pentateuch, in which if one even went out to gather sticks (Num. 15:32-36) in order to kindle a fire (Ex. 35:1-3) he was to be put to death (Ex. 31:14-15, 35:2). All this strictness was a part of the tutelage of the law, which was meant to lead Israel by the hand to Jesus Christ (Gal. 3:24), who is the final sacrifice ending the old covenant (Heb. 7:11-12, 18-19, 8:7, 13).

Maybe I'm missing something. How else do we account for the passing away of the seventh day Sabbath and stoning of Sabbath breakers?_


----------



## ADKing

dannyhyde said:


> ADKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dannyhyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Finally, any doubts about whether the so-called "Continental" view of the Sabbath is in any way less strict than the English view are laid to rest by the Synod of Dort's doctrinal deliverance (things the Synod of the churches declares that are binding on all the churches) of its 164th session on May 17, 1619:
> 
> _1. There is in the fourth commandment of the divine law a ceremonial and a moral element.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> Just for the record, (I hope this is not diverting the thread by becoming too minute) the later and Puritand doctrine of the Sabbath as exressed in the WCF, WLC, would not agree with this point. The later English Puritans denied that the 4th commandment was at all ceremonial. It is wholly moral. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> 
> Adam,
> 
> Dort goes on to explain which aspects of the Sabbath were moral and ceremonial:
> 
> 1. There is in the fourth commandment of the divine law a *ceremonial* and a moral element.
> 2. The *ceremonial* element is the *rest of the seventh day after creation*, and the *strict observance of that day imposed especially on the Jewish people*.
> 3. The moral element consists in the fact that a certain definite day is set aside for worship and so much rest as is needful for worship and hallowed meditation.
> 
> This seems to me to be saying what WLC 116 says. What is ceremonial is the seventh day. WLC 116 says this in essence, as from creation to the resurrection the Sabbath was the seventh day, while after the resurrection is the first day. As well, the language of "strict observance...imposed on the Jewish people" is echoing the language of the Pentateuch, in which if one even went out to gather sticks (Num. 15:32-36) in order to kindle a fire (Ex. 35:1-3) he was to be put to death (Ex. 31:14-15, 35:2). All this strictness was a part of the tutelage of the law, which was meant to lead Israel by the hand to Jesus Christ (Gal. 3:24), who is the final sacrifice ending the old covenant (Heb. 7:11-12, 18-19, 8:7, 13).
> 
> Maybe I'm missing something. How else do we account for the passing away of the seventh day Sabbath and stoning of Sabbath breakers?_
Click to expand...

_

I agree that there was a ceremonial aspect to the Sabbath in the OT--the seventh day. However, the only point I was trying to make was that there was nothing ceremonial in the fourth commandment itself. According to the majority presentation of this in later Puritanism the fourth commandment was wholly moral. Insofar as there was anything ceremonial (i.e. the specific 7th day) it did not come from the fourth commandment but other revelation. The 10 commandments themselves do not posses ceremonial components. I believe this nuanced point does represent a place in which 17th century Puritanism developed the Sabbath doctrine further than their continental counterparts, largerly due to their extensive debates with the Laudians. Although Rev. Winzer may be correct and not all Puritans took this approach, I think this became the majority position on it in England in the 1640s when the Westminster Standards were being formulated. See The Market Day of the Soul: The Puritan Doctrine of the Sabbath in England 1532-1700 for a great historical treatment of its development._


----------



## MW

I see better what Rev. King is saying -- the 4th commandment itself is wholly moral, but the Sabbath also has ceremonial aspects added to it. But I still think it is a matter of perspective, and that divines will present the matter differently depending on what it is they are seeking to prove. So William Twisse:



> Yet I willingly confesse, that in my observation, two things there are, which seeme to be of great moment, in opposition to the morality of the fourth Commandement: 1. The change of the day. 2. The generall opinion of the Fathers pronouncing in an indefinit manner the fourth Commandement to be ceremoniall. Yet notwithstanding, the registring of it in the Decalogue, which is generally accompted the Law morall, I say, this consideration hath even prevailed more with mee, to accompt the substance thereof morall. Neverthelesse for the honour I owe, and respect I beare to Antiquity, I have endevoured to understand the Antients aright, and to enquire in what respect they accompted it ceremoniall. For to my understanding, the sanctification of the rest, or the service of the day, especially unto us Christians is meerely morall. But as concerning the rest it selfe, it may be, some ceremoniality may be found therein, especially considered in conjunction with the time appointed for the worship and service of God.


----------



## bookslover

CanuckPuritan24 said:


> I'm wondering if there are any great differences or different emphasis in theology between that practiced by the Puritans and which was practiced on the European continent during the same time? I suppose the sum of my question is how historically similar is puritan theology to Continental reformed theology?



The Continental Reformers drank Coke. The British and American Puritans preferred Pepsi. This explains the superiority of the Westminster Standards to the Three Forms of Unity.

You read it here first...


----------

