Puritans and Patristics

[Hamalas]

I'm very interested to explore the connections between the Puritans and the Church Fathers. Among other questions I'm wanting to know: 1) if they read the Fathers often, 2) which Fathers they read, 3) how they interacted with them, 4) where they agreed and where they disagreed. I've done a bit of digging online and the only work I've found on the subject is this: Ann-Stephane Schäfer, Auctoritas Patrum? The Reception of the Church Fathers in Puritanism. Reviewed by Tibor Fabiny | DGFA Does anyone know of other resources (scholarly or otherwise) to recommend?

 

[reaganmarsh]

 

[py3ak]

Individual studies of Puritan authors should touch on that for each one. Jean Daille's A Treatise on the Right Use of the Fathers would be a logical place to begin for the method of appropriation.

I think you'll find that Augustine stands out, but that in essence they critically read everything they could get their hands on. The ecclesiastical historians are also very commonly cited and referred to. It is clear that they read appreciatively, and with respect. In other words, they expected to be instructed and inspired and therefore read quite seriously, although they were free to disagree.

 

[Hamalas]

Has there been much scholarly and/or popular work done on this topic?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I do not know, but you might include in your search any works, books or articles, pedia entries etc. that deal with the editions of the fathers published and available to the Puritans circa mid sixteenth through the end of the seventeenth century. In my research on the books available to Nicholas Bownd who wrote True Doctrine of the Sabbath (see previous threads of mine on the prepublication and pending release of a new critical edition) as far as what he could have purchased, borrowed or perused at library collections then available to him (1590-1606), he cited works either directly or indirectly from Ambrose, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Sozomen, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, Cyril, Tertullian, Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine, by far citing the last the most, though the most often cited work is now classed as not by Augustine. By the standards of the time Bownd's work was particularly scholarly, works previous to his touching on his subject matter citing only a handful of works, while he cites over 150 individual titles. As Puritans published more and more scholarly works, I think that trend continued. You might also look at works on the educational training of the period as the better witted boys would move on from a "petty school" to grammar school (like Eton which Bownd's brother attended) and on to university like Cambridge or Oxford.

 

[Hamalas]

It seems like there is more work for scholarly research in this area. I'll be interested to see how this field might develop in the years to come.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

I have not read this far, but It might be of some use to read two works by Dr. Pelikan:

The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 4: Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700)

The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 5: Christian Doctrine and Modern Culture (since 1700)


He seems to be pretty good on the first three, although it seems he favors Eastern Orthodoxy.

 

[py3ak]

It seems like there is more work for scholarly research in this area. I'll be interested to see how this field might develop in the years to come.

Obviously Muller's PRRD goes some way to get you started.

 

[Nicholas Perella]

I have not read this far, but It might be of some use to read two works by Dr. Pelikan:

The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 4: Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700)

The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 5: Christian Doctrine and Modern Culture (since 1700)


He seems to be pretty good on the first three, although it seems he favors Eastern Orthodoxy.

Just to add.

I am reading these volumes as well, but I have not come to Vol. 4 yet. Dr. Pelikan favored Cardinal Newman's Theory of Development (19th C.). The Cardinal Newman who was once an Anglican Church priest who took a leading role in Tractarianism and is generally known as the father of Vatican Two. He (Cardinal Newman) has recently undergone beautification (1 false miracle) by the last pope (Pope Benedict). Dr. Pelikan also favored von Harnack (liberalism). While I read his 1st volume and come across his emphasis on liturgical* practice and how doctrine, as he defines it is believed, taught, and confessed (pg. 3 cited below); therefore his understanding of church doctrine was heavily sought in the liturgy (where the meaning of doctrine comes to light for him at times). Liturgy does define church doctrine, but this is hermeneutical to him in understanding church history. He has a humanistic way of studying church history attempting to research how the church was, but lacks God's standard to anchor his thoughts. I find Pelikan not very discerning at times, ex. he emphasizes at one point that Christ's ill-return in the early church was a delay and the early church had to deal with this expectation due to the delay. He then leaves it there. Did the whole early church really have to deal critically with this delay? Or did some believe the words of God in 2 Peter in that God is longsuffering and God will come, though as a thief in the night. So it is not a 'delay' in the sense of what God revealed to Peter. I know there were believers in the early church who heeded God's Word and found comfort in that God is longsuffering and so His coming is not 'delayed' - delayed by what? God did not reveal His Words to Peter in order that Peter would write the letter in vain, though this is not to say that interpreting the scriptures was and is done perfectly. To be charitable maybe I am not getting the nuance of Pelikan's use of the word 'delay'. That is surely possible.

Yet at other times he interprets the early church that leaves me with the obvious sense that Pelikan has a harder delineation between the Old Testament and New Testament than a Covenantal understanding. So Pelikan will describe what the early church received from the Old Testament in unreformed ways. When Pelikan describes the contrast between Gnosticism and Christian supernatural orderings he does so accurately by pointing out quite wonderfully that the Creator-creature distinction is rooted in the Old Testament, as opposed to the Gnostic supernatural distinction between the spiritual world and earthly world (remembering in Gnosticism 'earthly' is evil). Yet Pelikan goes on to say about this "corrective" of the Gnostic distinction by Old Testament-Christian distinction as follows:

Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition V. 1, (The University of Chicago Press: Chicago and London, 1971.) 140-141.

For this corrective upon the implications that could be drawn from its acceptance of a supernatural order Christian doctrine was indebted to its biblical roots, especially to its retention of the Old Testament. Harnack's exclamation, 'What a wealth of religious material, derived from the most variegated stages in the history of religion, is contained in this book!' is certainly borne out by the lush religious imagery of the liturgy or by the history of the Christian exegesis of the Song of Solomon. But it utterly overlooks what the Old Testament had done to this 'wealth of religious material.' A myth that seems originally to have described the discovery of sex became the most profound of accounts of the fall, and the Canaanite celebrations of cosmic and human fertility were transformed into festivals of the covenant between the people of Israel and a just and merciful God. The church used, but it did not need, the Old Testament as a resource for the supernaturalism that bound it to the history of religion. But from the Old Testament it learned to redefine the 'supernatural'...

You may see the liberalism (A myth...), the theory of development (Old Testament correcting (developing) the Canaanite celebrations, the church learning to "redefine" from the Old Testament - that developmental emphasis on learning to redefine or develop), and a quote from Harnack as an added bonus. Pelkin seemingly provides a dedication, does not title it "Dedication", but does in those first pages of the book before the content of the book itself, he quotes from Cardinal Newman and von Harnack. Pelikan was ecumenically minded and did become Eastern Orthodox.

I am reading this book alongside William Cunningham's book "Historical Theology" and there is a world of difference even on the grounds of defining history and therefore the hermeneutic of history. Cunningham actually takes on the Tractarians and Dr. Newman's Theory of Development so though 19th C. possesses contemporary relevance. Cunningham does not shy away from applying God's standard to history, and as Ruben mentions above in a previous post in how the Puritan's defined the early church in denouncing fashion, though Cunningham is not Puritan historically conceived, he is I would say Puritan minded for he definitely covers the corruption in the early church (even as seen in the New Testament) and he uses the Scriptures the wade through the historical waters that the reader will find himself anchored by God's Word in defining the early church. I greatly recommend this book.

Pelikan may contrast his view with the Reformers in Volume 4 of his series, as I mentioned I have not read it. But from what I have read from Pelikan there would need to be a necessary contrast between his interpretation of history from how a Puritan would interpret history.

*Edit: When I say "liturgy" above it would be better to say "tradition". Liturgy is part of tradition, but is narrow in scope compared to the broader term tradition.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

I have not read this far, but It might be of some use to read two works by Dr. Pelikan:

The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 4: Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700)

The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 5: Christian Doctrine and Modern Culture (since 1700)


He seems to be pretty good on the first three, although it seems he favors Eastern Orthodoxy.

Just to add.

I am reading these volumes as well, but I have not come to Vol. 4 yet. Dr. Pelikan favored Cardinal Newman's Theory of Development (19th C.). The Cardinal Newman who was once an Anglican Church priest who took a leading role in Tractarianism and is generally known as the father of Vatican Two. He (Cardinal Newman) has recently undergone beautification (1 false miracle) by the last pope (Pope Benedict). Dr. Pelikan also favored von Harnack (liberalism). While I read his 1st volume and come across his emphasis on liturgical* practice and how doctrine, as he defines it is believed, taught, and confessed (pg. 3 cited below); therefore his understanding of church doctrine was heavily sought in the liturgy (where the meaning of doctrine comes to light for him at times). Liturgy does define church doctrine, but this is hermeneutical to him in understanding church history. He has a humanistic way of studying church history attempting to research how the church was, but lacks God's standard to anchor his thoughts. I find Pelikan not very discerning at times, ex. he emphasizes at one point that Christ's ill-return in the early church was a delay and the early church had to deal with this expectation due to the delay. He then leaves it there. Did the whole early church really have to deal critically with this delay? Or did some believe the words of God in 2 Peter in that God is longsuffering and God will come, though as a thief in the night. So it is not a 'delay' in the sense of what God revealed to Peter. I know there were believers in the early church who heeded God's Word and found comfort in that God is longsuffering and so His coming is not 'delayed' - delayed by what? God did not reveal His Words to Peter in order that Peter would write the letter in vain, though this is not to say that interpreting the scriptures was and is done perfectly. To be charitable maybe I am not getting the nuance of Pelikan's use of the word 'delay'. That is surely possible.

Yet at other times he interprets the early church that leaves me with the obvious sense that Pelikan has a harder delineation between the Old Testament and New Testament than a Covenantal understanding. So Pelikan will describe what the early church received from the Old Testament in unreformed ways. When Pelikan describes the contrast between Gnosticism and Christian supernatural orderings he does so accurately by pointing out quite wonderfully that the Creator-creature distinction is rooted in the Old Testament, as opposed to the Gnostic supernatural distinction between the spiritual world and earthly world (remembering in Gnosticism 'earthly' is evil). Yet Pelikan goes on to say about this "corrective" of the Gnostic distinction by Old Testament-Christian distinction as follows:

Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition V. 1, (The University of Chicago Press: Chicago and London, 1971.) 140-141.

For this corrective upon the implications that could be drawn from its acceptance of a supernatural order Christian doctrine was indebted to its biblical roots, especially to its retention of the Old Testament. Harnack's exclamation, 'What a wealth of religious material, derived from the most variegated stages in the history of religion, is contained in this book!' is certainly borne out by the lush religious imagery of the liturgy or by the history of the Christian exegesis of the Song of Solomon. But it utterly overlooks what the Old Testament had done to this 'wealth of religious material.' A myth that seems originally to have described the discovery of sex became the most profound of accounts of the fall, and the Canaanite celebrations of cosmic and human fertility were transformed into festivals of the covenant between the people of Israel and a just and merciful God. The church used, but it did not need, the Old Testament as a resource for the supernaturalism that bound it to the history of religion. But from the Old Testament it learned to redefine the 'supernatural'...

You may see the liberalism (A myth...), the theory of development (Old Testament correcting (developing) the Canaanite celebrations, the church learning to "redefine" from the Old Testament - that developmental emphasis on learning to redefine or develop), and a quote from Harnack as an added bonus. Pelkin seemingly provides a dedication, does not title it "Dedication", but does in those first pages of the book before the content of the book itself, he quotes from Cardinal Newman and von Harnack. Pelikan was ecumenically minded and did become Eastern Orthodox.

I am reading this book alongside William Cunningham's book "Historical Theology" and there is a world of difference even on the grounds of defining history and therefore the hermeneutic of history. Cunningham actually takes on the Tractarians and Dr. Newman's Theory of Development so though 19th C. possesses contemporary relevance. Cunningham does not shy away from applying God's standard to history, and as Ruben mentions above in a previous post in how the Puritan's defined the early church in denouncing fashion, though Cunningham is not Puritan historically conceived, he is I would say Puritan minded for he definitely covers the corruption in the early church (even as seen in the New Testament) and he uses the Scriptures the wade through the historical waters that the reader will find himself anchored by God's Word in defining the early church. I greatly recommend this book.

Pelikan may contrast his view with the Reformers in Volume 4 of his series, as I mentioned I have not read it. But from what I have read from Pelikan there would need to be a necessary contrast between his interpretation of history from how a Puritan would interpret history.

*Edit: When I say "liturgy" above it would be better to say "tradition". Liturgy is part of tradition, but is narrow in scope compared to the broader term tradition.

Unfortunately is seems I have to add a comment to this post. Although Pelikan clearly has theological differences, he is one of the leading church historians of modern time. One of the main (if not the main) reasons I suggested such books is due to the fact he gives countless references to original sources, which is something lacking in much of so-called historian "scholarship". Maybe if we just go back to the original sources themselves, we can truly see what the puritans thought. This would take much more time and discipline then most have.

 

[RamistThomist]

I'm very interested to explore the connections between the Puritans and the Church Fathers. Among other questions I'm wanting to know: 1) if they read the Fathers often,

An old Puritan legend has it that Ussher read the fathers every day.

2) which Fathers they read,

Primarily Augustine, then moving outward to other Western authors (Ambrose and Jerome) and then the occasional Eastern guy. Since textual criticism really didn't exist for patristic study, and much of the East was under Turkish enslavement, it was hard for Western thinkers to get a hold of reliable Eastern texts.

 

[RamistThomist]

I have not read this far, but It might be of some use to read two works by Dr. Pelikan:

The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 4: Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700)

The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 5: Christian Doctrine and Modern Culture (since 1700)


He seems to be pretty good on the first three, although it seems he favors Eastern Orthodoxy.

He didn't convert to EO until the end of his life. He actually had wanted to convert earlier, but the bishop wouldn't let him. The first three are outstanding, if becoming dated, volumes.

A fantastic introduction to the fathers is Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers by Christopher Hall.

 

[Nicholas Perella]

Unfortunately is seems I have to add a comment to this post. Although Pelikan clearly has theological differences, he is one of the leading church historians of modern time. One of the main (if not the main) reasons I suggested such books is due to the fact he gives countless references to original sources, which is something lacking in much of so-called historian "scholarship". Maybe if we just go back to the original sources themselves, we can truly see what the puritans thought. This would take much more time and discipline then most have.

That was what I was pointing out. There are clearly theological differences. A church historian does not just copy and paste original sources and the more copying and pasting does not necessarily make such a person more scholarly or not. I assume you agree.

My main point was to point out theological differences in how a person interprets history do exist. That would be agreeable to most people, and again, I assume agreeable to you also. So I was just simply building upon your post and not being contentious with you, but rather, I was digging more into the topic itself which I do not doubt you could do as well.

A secondary point of mine was in light of what you posted and I quote above, is to make clear that though Pelikan is widely read it does not mean his historical hermeneutic is desired by me and I gave my reasons why. I am no expert in historical hermeneutics, but I do find it interesting. An interest I did not really know I had until after writing my post to be honest. I found it interesting that Cunningham took that hermeneutical stance as to who holds the historical dominion in interpreting history, which he humbly points out is God and His written Word, and Cunningham applied his interpretation of history alongside scripture over and against the Roman Catholic church (and others) interpretation of history. He spent a lot of time explicitly covering that point.

In light of the OP I think there is an assumption that the Puritan's interpreted history differently than the Roman Catholic's, Church of England, and others which as I pointed out that though Cunningham is a couple centuries later than the puritans it appears his hermeneutical approach is in line with what Ruben said about a puritan hermeneutic of history, i.e. "free to disagree".

As I am reading Pelikan, I find myself taking note of how he interprets history and noting that I would not interpret history that way. If he just becomes a source of quotes, then yes it would be better to go back to the original sources and read the fuller context. Though I find it helpful to read what somebody has to say who spent way more time thinking about this subject matter than I have, and Pelikan himself becomes a subject to study while reading his books which is an additional study/reading than just reading what he wrote about history. Same would go for Cunningham, or what the OP desires which is what this or that puritan had to say.

Thanks

 

[RamistThomist]

My own observations on Pelikan:

With regard to the problem of Tradition and Authority, he cooks the evidence towards the myth of an unbroken tradition. That's probably why a lot of EO converts gush over Pelikan.

Ironically, though, in the second volume on the Eastern Church, he lists all of the problems other communions had with Chalcedon and he doesn't try to "save the day."

He is also relatively quiet on the Filioque.

 

[arapahoepark]

My own observations on Pelikan:

With regard to the problem of Tradition and Authority, he cooks the evidence towards the myth of an unbroken tradition. That's probably why a lot of EO converts gush over Pelikan.

Ironically, though, in the second volume on the Eastern Church, he lists all of the problems other communions had with Chalcedon and he doesn't try to "save the day."

He is also relatively quiet on the Filioque.

There's an article floating out there detailing his conversion to EO. Google it, I forgot the name. It was largely due to broad evangelicalism infiltrating Lutheran circles. He has said, "When the ECLA became Methodist and the LCMS became baptist, I became orthodox." However, even in his conversion, or so I have read, he did not waiver on justification. At least this from a cursory reading of his Acts commentary.

 

[RamistThomist]

My own observations on Pelikan:

With regard to the problem of Tradition and Authority, he cooks the evidence towards the myth of an unbroken tradition. That's probably why a lot of EO converts gush over Pelikan.

Ironically, though, in the second volume on the Eastern Church, he lists all of the problems other communions had with Chalcedon and he doesn't try to "save the day."

He is also relatively quiet on the Filioque.

There's an article floating out there detailing his conversion to EO. Google it, I forgot the name. It was largely due to broad evangelicalism infiltrating Lutheran circles. He has said, "When the ECLA became Methodist and the LCMS became baptist, I became orthodox." However, even in his conversion, or so I have read, he did not waiver on justification. At least this from a cursory reading of his Acts commentary.

I listened to a few conservative Lutherans on the "Baptists" quip, that simply meant that the LCMS affirmed "inerrancy."