Accommodation and Discernment in Jeremiah Burroughs’ Irenicum

Home , Adiaphora, Irenicism, Jeremiah Burroughs, Matthew Newcomen, Multiconfessionalism, Patrick Forbes

KNOWING WHEN TO YIELD: ACCOMMODATION AND DISCERNMENT IN JEREMIAH BURROUGHS’ IRENICUM

RACHEL SUE BRIGHTON

B.B. Sc. (Hons), LaTrobe University, 1992

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Theology, Acadia University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (Theology)

Acadia Divinity College, Acadia University Spring Convocation 2014

This thesis by RACHEL SUE BRIGHTON was defended successfully in an oral examination on 14 April, 2014.

The examining committee for the thesis was:

Dr. Anna Robbins, Chair

Dr. Gary Thorne, External Examiner

Dr. Glenn Wooden, Internal Examiner

Dr. William Brackney, Supervisor

This thesis is accepted in its present form by Acadia Divinity College, the Faculty of Theology of Acadia University, as satisfying the thesis requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (Theology).

iii

I, RACHEL SUE BRIGHTON, hereby grant permission to the University Librarian at Acadia University to provide copies of my thesis, upon request, on a non-profit basis.

Rachel Sue Brighton Author

Dr. William Brackney Supervisor

April 14, 2014 Date

(This page is blank on purpose.)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS viii

INTRODUCTION 1. Statement of the Problem 1 2. Method 3 3. Claim 5 4. Delimitation 5 5. Outline 7 6. Christian Ethics from an Historical Perspective 8 7. Literature Review on Burroughs 10

Chapter 1: BURROUGHS IN CONTEXT 1. Biography 12 2. Political and Ecclesial Context 18 A. The Westminster Assembly 22 B. Congregationalism 24 C. Presbyterianism 28 D. Political and Religious Accommodation 29 3. Burroughs’ Doctrine of the Church 30 4. Burroughs’ Views on Worship and Discipline 32 5. Hermeneutics 36 A. Reading the Bible 36 B. Puritans and Paul 39

Chapter 2: IRENICISM AND ADIAPHORA 1. Irenicism 40 2. Adiaphora as an Instrument of Church Unity 44 A. The Early Lutheran Understanding 48 B. Richard Hooker’s Understanding 51 C. William Ames on Conscience and Adiaphora 52 3. Summary 55

Chapter 3: IRENICUM 1. Literary Genre 56 A. Introduction 56 B. “Irenicums” in England in the 1600s 56 C. Contemporary Irenic Works 58 1) Joseph Hall: Christian Moderation 59 2) John Davenant: Exhortation to Brotherly Communion 60 3) Leonard Busher: Religion’s Peace 62

D. English Practical Divinity 1) Overview 63 2) The Ramist Influence on Practical Divinity 64

2. The Text of Irenicum 66 3. Structure 67 4. Dividing Principles 70

A. FIRST: “There can be no agreement without uniformity” 70 B. SECOND AND THIRD: “All religions are to be tolerated” 72 “That nothing which is conceived to be evil is to be suffered” 72 C. FOURTH: “Division is the best way to maintain Dominion” 73 D. FIFTH: “That every man is bound to profess … truth” 73 E. SIXTH: “What is in itself best must be chosen and done …” 75 F. SEVENTH: “It is obstinacy … not to be convinced …” 76 G. EIGHTH: “If others be against … the truth …” 77 H. NINTH: “Rules of prudence are sufficient to guide us…” 77 I. TENTH: “Every difference in Religion is a differing Religion” 78

5. The “Knotty Business” of Knowing When to Yield 78 6. Rules and Parameters 80 7. Burroughs’ Use of “Things Indifferent” 84 8. Theological Motivation 86 9. Summary 89

Chapter 4: ACCOMMODATION IN THEOLOGICAL USE 1. Overview 91 2. Linguistic Meaning of “Accommodation” 92 3. Recent Scholarship 94 4. Negative Connotation 98 5. Pauline Studies 100 6. An Historical Example of Accommodation 106 7. A Contemporary Example of Accommodation 107 8. Summary 108

Chapter 5: THE NEED FOR DISCERNMENT 1. Discernment 110 2. Practical Moral Reasoning and Prudence 113 3. Metaethics and Heuristics 115 4. ‘Ecclesial Ethics’ 116 5. Paul and “Strife” 119 6. Adiaphora and Discernment 123

CONCLUSION 127 BIBLIOGRAPHY 131

APPENDIX A: Additional Works of Burroughs 154 APPENDIX B: Outline of Chapters 15-34 of Irenicum 158

vii

ABSTRACT

This thesis offers a critical assessment of the principles for peaceful fellowship advanced by Jeremiah Burroughs (1599-1646) in a series of lectures on division and concord in the church, which were published in London in 1645 under the title Irenicum. The focus is on his moderating and conciliating principles and their theological justification. The concept of accommodation, as understood in the context of recent Pauline scholarship, is used to examine the central ideas grouped around the practice of “yielding” in Burroughs’ proposal. It is suggested that his Irenicum makes a contribution to discourse on ecclesial ethics, by offering a practical and scriptural framework for congregational discernment in times of conflict.

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank the professors of Acadia Divinity College who have taught me over the past many years: Drs. William H. Brackney, Craig A. Evans, Robert S. Wilson and R.

Glenn Wooden. I am grateful for Dr. Brackney’s guidance and encouragement in my preparation of this thesis. My research would have been impossible without the gracious and attentive librarians at the Vaughan Memorial Library of Acadia University, the

Annapolis Valley campus library of the Nova Scotia Community College in

Lawrencetown, and the various librarians from other universities associated with the

Novanet consortium of libraries. Without comparison in all their support and motivation are my husband, Daniel Lillford, and our sons, Rupert, Jesse and Harry. May God bless you and make His face to shine upon you and keep you in the palm of His hand.

INTRODUCTION

“So far as reason and conscience will give way, yield to those you contend with.”

“If there be any soul-disease that is opprobrium Theologorum, the disgrace of Divines, it is this of contention and division. How little has all that they have studied and endeavoured to do, prevailed with the hearts of men?”

“Variety of opinions, and unity of those that hold them, may stand together.”

“If I must needs err, considering what our condition is here in this world, I will rather err by too much gentleness and mildness, than by too much rigour and severity.”

– Jeremiah Burroughs, Irenicum

1. Statement of the Problem

Disputes among Christians can and do arise when scripture appears “silent” or open to reasonable differences in interpretation. How do Christians discern between right and wrong in disputed matters within their congregation or church tradition? When consensus or compromise through dialogue has failed, should you stand your ground or “give in?”

Upon what theological resources would you draw, and on what principles would you stand? Presuming that fellow Christians with whom you disagree also rely on scripture, as you do, then on what grounds would you, or should you, yield for the sake of fellowship? Jeremiah Burroughs (1599-1646) tackled questions like this in his lectures on division and unity in the church, which were published in London in 1645 under the title

Irenicum.1

1 Irenicum, to the lovers of truth and peace. Heart-divisions opened in the causes and evils of them: with cautions that we may not be hurt by them, and endeavours to heal them (London: Printed for

Burroughs was an English Congregationalist minister and lecturer who sought to reconcile tensions between Christians in a period of sharp theological dispute during the first English Civil War (1642–46) and while the Westminster Assembly of Divines was in session. Amidst this turmoil of church and state, he delivered a series of lectures that diagnosed causes of division and prescribed remedies for what might loosely be called intellectual and affective aspects of disunity. In doing so, Burroughs addressed the difficult question of when it is good for Christians to yield to one another in disagreements, for the sake of fellowship. As will be seen in his Irenicum, Burroughs also sought to hold certain things in dynamic tension, principally: diversity and unity; fellowship and freedom; and being right as an individual and walking uprightly and in unison as Christ’s church. I hope this report on my research will help some congregations today as they face situations of conflict within the church.

Robert Dawlman, 1643, 1653). Digital facsimiles of the 1645 and 1653 editions were consulted for this study and the page numbers cited are from the latter. I have retained the syntax, changed spelling, and kept the punctuation as much as possible, but altered it occasionally to clarify meaning. The only word I have consistently replaced is “then,” which meant then what is now meant by “than.” The texts I used can been seen in the subscription database, Early English Books Online. A searchable digitized version of the 1653 edition is available at The Internet Archive of the University of Toronto Libraries, https://archive.org/details/irenicumtothelov00burruoft.

2. Method

This study has attempted to establish a valid method for evaluating Burroughs’ approach to church conflict, to warrant bringing forward his example to aid congregations that may be facing divisive situations within their own fellowship. It endeavours to show the theological principles upon which Burroughs encouraged Christians to “yield to those you contend with,” so far as “reason and conscience will give way.” [Irenicum, 290] To establish a framework for evaluation, Burroughs’ concept of accommodating difference is “tested” against the teaching of Paul as understood in recent scholarship.

There are some obvious difficulties in interpreting an historic text, especially when the aim is to harvest resources for the church today. It proved necessary to understand in reasonable detail the ideas and arguments circulating in Burroughs’ milieu, so as to figure out which arguments and principles were time-bound and which might make the difficult passage across time. For instance, the text advances classic arguments for tolerance by the state or the church and outlines a typology of conflict and peace-making within the church. It is very likely that its publication in 1645 aided the apologetics of the

Independents as they pressed Parliament for congregational concessions and then for autonomy.2 My premise was that Burroughs’ case for peace and unity may well have been self-serving to some degree. No doubt mindful of such a reading, Burroughs’ preface stated his intention that the published work should be taken as an “Irenicum,” not

2 On page 136, for example, Burroughs asked, rhetorically, “What hope can there be of union, where there will be no yielding?” It would be easy to surmise that Presbyterians were stubborn for not yielding to the pleas of Burroughs and his fellow Dissenting Brethren in the Westminster Assembly, who opposed certain Presbyterian principles. There are many such passages that should be read as polemic.

a “Polemicum.”3 To quarantine traces of his polemic and tease out any enduring significance of his proposal, I have therefore concentrated on the conciliating or moderating principles on which he rests his case and I have attempted to determine their theological motivation and merit. For the sake of definition, I have adopted the concept of accommodation as the motif that best expresses a key proposal in Burroughs’ work, even though he used this term only once in the sense adopted here. However, Burroughs employed a suite of related concepts that can be clustered around this central idea: such as yielding, pardoning, “putting up the wrong,” forbearing, and refraining from professing or acting on one’s own apprehension of the truth in justifiable circumstances.

The term he most often employed, and the easiest to grasp, is “yielding.” There is, however, no critical body of scholarship on the theological use of yielding, apart from its expression in Gelassenheit, meaning “yieldedness” of one’s own will to God’s will. The concept of Gelassenheit is prominent in Mennonite thought and has its heritage in the mystical Christian tradition associated with Meister Eckhart (1260–c.1327). The term is also associated with the philosophy of Martin Heidegger (1889–1976), although he used it in respect of things in a discussion of technology, as in “die Gelassenheit zu den

Dingen.”4 To the extent that this concept of Gelassenheit, in its Christian usage, is grounded in the will, it differs distinctly from Burroughs’ interest in the cognitive and affective aspects of peaceful practice.

3 Although Burroughs claimed his lectures did not constitute a “polemicum,” he did use his preface (pages A3 and A4) to criticize an unnamed, yet prominent opponent, understood to be Thomas Edwards (1599–1648). See the discussion below under “Rules and Parameters” in Chapter 3. 4 Martin Heidegger, Gelassenheit (Pfullingen: Neske, 1959), 23. Heidegger’s use was translated as “releasement.” See Discourse on Thinking, A Translation of Gelassenheit by John M. Anderson and E. Hans Freund, with an introduction by John M. Anderson (New York: Harper and Row, 1966), 92.

To warrant using the idea of accommodation to denote a key and distinctive element in

Burroughs’ proposal, in the fourth chapter I have summarized recent literature on the theological use of the concept of accommodation in Pauline exegesis and ethics. I have not attempted to argue that accommodation is good or bad. I have simply endeavoured to

“open up” – as Burroughs would have put it – his theological rationale for deciding when to “yield to those you contend with.”

3. Claim

Employing theological principles that are harmonious with the teaching of Paul, Jeremiah

Burroughs’ Irenicum advances a qualified concept of peaceful accommodation in the church and makes a continuing contribution to discourse on ecclesial ethics.

4. Delimitation

This is a study in Christian moral reasoning and discernment within the fellowship of the church. It is not a study in the Christian understanding of peace, as given in scripture, nor of the meaning of unity as it relates to the church. It is taken as given that peace and unity are important aspects of Christian fellowship and practice, for, as Jesus said: “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John

13:35). Readers interested in a full and recent treatment of the biblical framework for understanding the Christian meaning of peace might consult the biblical survey Covenant of Peace: The Missing Peace in New Testament Theology and Ethics by Willard M.

Swartley, Professor Emeritus of New Testament at the Anabaptist Mennonite Biblical

Seminary.5 Questions of unity are dealt with in so far as they aid the interpretation of

Burroughs’ work. No evaluation is made of Burroughs’ presentation of the dispute between Presbyterians and the Dissenting Brethren, of whom he was one. The dissenting members of the Westminster Assembly sought concessions for a different form of church polity than was being proposed by the Presbyterian majority. No comparison is made of

Burroughs’ views on church polity relative to his fellow dissenters. Of some importance, this study does not seek to reconcile or comment on the irenic tone of his lectures relative to his more acerbic public tone when engaged in political dispute, either in print or in speech. Also, while some recourse is made to Burroughs’ other works to aid the interpretation of his Irenicum, no analysis is made of his whole body of work or the different genres within it. These are principally exposition and commentary, devotional works, doctrinal studies, and political works, including sermons delivered in Parliament.

A list of other works not consulted for this study is given in Appendix A. No attempt is made to assess Burroughs’ contribution to the development of Independent doctrine and polity or even to religious tolerance. My purpose is simply to locate him within that course of development for the purpose of interpreting his “peace proposal” and assessing its significance. Finally, this study is not concerned with the merits of the Independents’ arguments for Parliamentary accommodation of their views. Their arguments for accommodation were constantly in flux and when asked to put forward their explicit claims, they declined. To address their claims fully would require a full study of

Assembly minutes and parliamentary journals. Readers interested in this aspect should

5 Willard M. Swartley, Covenant of Peace: The Missing Peace in New Testament Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, England: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006).

consult the work of Rosemary Bradley, an independent scholar whose unpublished dissertation addressed the debates between Presbyterians and Independents in the

Assembly.6 A critical edition of the minutes of the Westminster Assembly was published in 2012; regrettably, it could not be accessed within the timeframe of this study, as originally hoped.7

5. Outline

This study begins by placing Burroughs’ Irenicum within its immediate historical and ecclesial setting – which opens with the Short Parliament in 1640 and closes with

Burroughs’ death in 1646. The second chapter considers the boarder conext of irenic church practices and introduces the concept of adiaphora, an understanding of which is necessary to correctly comprehend some of Burroughs’ arguments. The third chapter introduces the genre of irenic literature, of which Irenicum is an example, and sets out the structure and content of Burroughs’ typology of conflict in the church. The fourth chapter surveys recent scholarship on the theological use of the concept of accommodation: this term is used in the evaluation and assessment of Burroughs’ peace proposal. The final chapter will interpret the work and evaluate its significance as an aid to discernment in the church.

6 Rosemary D Bradley, “‘Jacob and Esau struggling in the Womb’: A Study of Presbyterian and Independent Religious Conflicts, 1640-1648: With Particular Reference to the Westminster Assembly and The Pamphlet Literature,” Ph.D. diss., University of Kent, 1975; and Bradley, “The Failure of Accommodation: Religious Conflicts Between Presbyterians and Independents in the Westminster Assembly 1643-1646,” Journal of Religious History 12 (1982): 23-47. I consulted the latter. At the time of publication of her article, Bradley was Head of the History Department at the Belvedere School in Liverpool, England. 7 The Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly, 1643-1652, 5 volumes, edited by Chad Van Dixhoorn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).

6. Christian Ethics from an Historical Perspective

This study considers the ethical dilemma raised in Burroughs’ peace proposal, in which he treats what he termed the “knotty business” of understanding “what must, and what must not be suffered” for the sake of Christian concord [Irenicum, 53]. As such, it offers an ethical reading of an historical text. This section will provide the rationale for this approach. Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) argued that it was necessary to establish an ethical framework to guide the process of research in historical theology. Otherwise, he suggested, “[w]ithout constant reference to ethical principles, even the study of historical theology is reduced to a kind of haphazard calisthenics and is bound to degenerate into a process of handing down meaningless information.”8 In his Brief

Outline of Theology as a Field of Study, first published in German in 1811,

Schleiermacher put forward his proposal for how theological inquiry should serve the life of the church. The three components he considered were philosophical theology, historical theology, and practical theology. In Schleiermacher’s approach, “historical theology is the actual corpus of theological study.”9 The task of historical theology is to grasp the historical and contemporary state of Christianity. The work of philosophical theology is to make critical assertions about the distinctive character and claims of

Christianity and to determine what constitutes a “diseased” state in the church relative to the ideal. The purpose of practical theology is to equip church leaders with the critical tools to prosper the church, and these tools are honed in the work of historical theology.

8 Friedrich Schleiermacher, Brief Outline of Theology as a Field of Study, Third Edition, Revised translation of the 1811 and 1830 editions, with essays and notes by Terrence N. Tice (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), § 29. References are to the enumerated sections in the book rather than to page numbers. 9 Schleiermacher, Brief Outline, § 28.

Schleiermacher located ethics within the field of philosophical theology. “Ethics” meant the construction of a framework for ordering the study of Christian culture and activity, so as to guide the study of historical theology.

Jean Porter, Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame, has made a twofold case for studying historical theology within the discipline of Christian ethics.10 Her first reason concerns biblical interpretation and the second concerns teaching and learning in an academic setting. Porter reasoned that if “the moral significance of Scripture, considered as a text that lays a claim on the Christian community, is discerned through interpretation and application, then it follows that the moral significance of Scripture as normative for the church cannot be understood apart from some consideration of the history of its interpretations and applications.”11 The second has to do with the subject matter of the material – texts that have shaped “the Christian moral tradition” – and the process of interpreting this material. It is the sheer difficulty of making sense of historic interpretations and applications that opens doors to new insight as students grapple with contextual issues and the nuances of historical research and try to comprehend the thought-world of the writer. “Precisely because these texts must be interpreted, they have something to teach us that we cannot readily learn in any other way.”12

Finally, there is the rationale offered by Mennonite theologian and ethicist, John Howard

Yoder (1927-1997). Early in his career as a student of church history, Yoder observed:

10 Jean Porter, “Mere History: The Place of Historical Studies in Theological Ethics,” Journal of Religious Ethics 25, no. 3 (1998, suppl): 103-26. 11 Porter, 116. 12 Porter, 105-6.

“If the study of church history is to have a real significance for the Christian church in our day, it must attach especial importance to the analysis of those ‘breaking points’ which have left Christians with a heritage of dividedness in faith and life.”13 Burroughs’

Irenicum was forged at a time when the Church in England appeared to be splintering and

Christians were at war.

7. Literature Review on Burroughs

There is no critical edition of Burroughs’ Irenicum nor a significant appraisal or comparison of it with other such works of his day. In his classic study of toleration in

England in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, W. K. Jordan (1902-1980), the former professor of history at Harvard University and the classic historian of the development of toleration in England, provided biographical material without a substantial engagement with Burroughs’ work. Jordan ranked Burroughs with the “great leaders of

Independency” in the 1640s.14 Winthrop S. Hudson, formerly professor of the History of

Christianity at Colgate Rochester Divinity School, made brief references to his part in the

Westminster Assembly. The English Congregationalist scholar Geoffrey Nuttall (1911-

2007) provided some biographical notes in his study of the “Congregational Way.” Mark

Jones, a Presbyterian minister in Canada and a research associate in theology at

University of the Free State in South Africa, briefly examined Burroughs’ use of scripture

13 John Howard Yoder, “The Turning Point in the Zwinglian Reformation,” The Mennonite Quarterly Review 32 (April 1958), 129; cited in C. Arnold Snyder, “Doing History with Theological Ethics in Mind: John Howard Yoder as Historian of Anabaptism,” Conrad Grebel Review 24, no. 2 (Spring 2006). See note 232. Snyder’s essay brought to my attention Yoder’s quote used here. 14 This assessment is perhaps too strong. Burroughs’ colleague, Thomas Goodwin, is more often recognized as the intellectual force within the group of Dissenting Brethren.

in his study of Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680). In his authoritative account of the

Westminster Assembly, R.S. Paul, who at the time was Professor of Ecclesiastical

History and Christian Thought at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary, made frequent, but brief, references to the contribution of Burroughs to these proceedings.

Francis J. Bremer, Professor Emeritus of History at Millersville University in

Pennsylvania, also made extensive, but brief, references to Burroughs in his thorough treatment of Congregationalism.15 Crawford Gribben, Professor of Early Modern British

History at Queen’s University in Belfast and an authority on English Puritan apocalyptic thought in the period under study, identified a millennial leaning in Burroughs’ reading of scripture and his discourse.16 A recent biography on Burroughs by independent scholar

Phillip Simpson has come closest to offering a complete picture of the man and his published works. It is not, however, a critical study and Simpson’s interest in his subject’s work could be described as devotional.17 I have found no published assessment of Burroughs’ thought that treats in detail his theology or his contribution to irenic literature in the mid-seventeenth century.18

15 Wilbur Kitchener Jordan, The Development of Religious Toleration in England, 4 vols. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932-1940); Winthrop S. Hudson, “Denominationalism as a Basis for Ecumenicity: A Seventeenth Century Conception,” Church History 24, no. 1 (March 1955): 32-50; Geoffrey F. Nuttall, Visible Saints: The Congregational Way, 1640-1660 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1957); Mark Jones, Why Heaven Kissed Earth: The Christology of the Puritan Reformed Orthodox Theologian, Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010); R. S. Paul, The Assembly of the Lord: Politics and Religion in the Westminster Assembly and the “Grand Debate” (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1985). 16 Crawford Gribben, “‘Passionate Desires, and Confident Hopes’: Puritan Millenarianism and Anglo-Scottish Union, 1560-1644,” Reformation & Renaissance Review 4, no. 2 (Dec 2002): 241-58; Gribben, “The Church of Scotland and the English Apocalyptic Imagination, 1630 to 1650,” The Scottish Historical Review 88, no. 1 (Apr 2009): 34-56. The millennialism evident in Burroughs’ published work will be noted, but not be taken up in this thesis. 17 Phillip L. Simpson, A Life of Gospel Peace: A Biography of Jeremiah Burroughs (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011). 18 I have not had access to Jim Davison’s unpublished dissertation, “Puritan Preaching as the Means of Promoting and Cultivating Godliness with Particular Reference to the Life and Ministry of

Chapter 1: BURROUGHS IN CONTEXT

1. Biography

Jeremiah Burroughs is a relatively minor figure in historical studies of English theology and church history in the mid-seventeenth century. He was an English Congregationalist minister, teacher and lecturer, who participated in two movements against the status quo.

First, he chose exile in Holland in response to the strictures imposed on ministers under

Archbishop William Laud. On his return, he was appointed to the Westminster Assembly in 1643, where he joined a small group of fellow Congregationalists known as the Five

Dissenting Brethren. As Assembly members, these five (along with several others) objected to a Presbyterian model of church government, because it would have subjected individual congregations to the authority and discipline of a hierarchy of extra- congregational presbyteries and assemblies. They advocated for accommodation or limited toleration of new forms of congregational worship, based on a conscientious objection to religious coercion and an understanding of scripture that limited the reach of hierarchical authority in the church. Burroughs attested to this transition from an earlier era of conflict between Puritans and their church leaders, which he termed “persecution,” and the current episode of conflict between the Presbyterian majority in the Assembly and the dissenting members, which he called the “fiery trial of contention.”

Whether the fiery trial of contention, or of persecution be greater, is hard to determine; God hath wrought to free us from the one, we have brought upon ourselves the other. Every man is angry that others are not of his mind; we have

Jeremiah Burroughs,” Queen’s University, Belfast, 2005. Other dissertations, not read for this thesis, but which might shed some light on the subject, are included in the bibliography for reference.

been so divided, that it is the infinite mercy of God that our enemies have not come in at our breaches, and divided all among themselves, before this time. Were our divisions only between the good and bad, they were not so grievous…. But our divisions have been and still are between good men. Even God’s Diamonds do cut one another…

The Westminster Assembly, in session from 1643 to 1653, was established by the Long

Parliament during the first English Civil War to reform the national church along

Presbyterian lines.19 This decade of deliberation among the Westminster “divines” yielded the key doctrinal statements that would henceforth guide Reformed and

Presbyterian churches: the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter

Catechisms, and the Directory of Worship.

In the same year, Parliament struck an alliance with the Scots and signed the Solemn

League and Covenant. This agreement opened the way for reform of the English church along Presbyterian lines. Shortly after, different understandings of authority and discipline created a rift among members of the Assembly, five of whom published An

Apologetical Narration to mark their dissent from the views of the Presbyterian majority.20 The five members became known as the Dissenting Brethren. They were

William Bridge (c. 1600-1670), Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680), Philip Nye (1595-1672),

Sidrach Simpson (1600-1655), and Burroughs.

19 United Kingdom, “June 1643: An Ordinance for the calling of an Assembly of Learned and Godly Divines, to be consulted with by the Parliament, for the settling of the Government of the Church,” Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642-1660 (1911), 180-84. URL: http://www.british- history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=55828&strquery=jeremiah burroughs Date accessed: 13 February 2014.” The Assembly effectively ended its work in 1648, but was only formally disbanded in 1653 with the beginning of Oliver Cromwell’s protectorate. See R.S. Paul, Assembly, and R. Tudur Jones, “Union with Christ: The Existential Nerve of Puritan Piety,” Tyndale Bulletin 41, no. 2 (Nov 1990): 186-208. 20 An apologeticall narration, humbly submitted to the Honourable Houses of Parliament. By Tho: Goodwin, Philip Nye, Sidrach Simpson, Jer: Burroughes, William Bridge (London: Printed for Robert Dawlman, 1643).

In the Assembly, Burroughs and his Congregationalist colleagues were known as

Independents, a term they rejected.21 Instead, they sought Parliamentary approval for the accommodation of self-disciplining, semi-autonomous congregations within a national church.22 Afterwards they sought toleration of their independent congregations alongside the national church. As Paul, a key historian of the Westminster Assembly, observed: “… the Independents moved naturally first to the hope of accommodation, next to the plea for toleration, then to the principle of Liberty of Conscience, and hence eventually to a more inclusive doctrine of the Church.”23

Their eventual plea for toleration formed a rallying point for religious diversity and church historian Winthrop S. Hudson has identified these five men as the “real architects of the denominational theory of the church.”24 In Jordan’s assessment, “Burroughs, writing as an Independent, added substantially to the discussion of what seemed to be an insoluble dilemma by addressing himself objectively and thoughtfully to the issue of toleration and the question of diversity of faith.”25

21 In An Apologeticall Narration, of which Burroughs was a co-author, the Dissenting Brethren observed of their name: “That proud and insolent title of Independency was affixed unto us, as our claim; the very sound of which conveys to all men’s apprehensions the challenge of an exemption of all Churches from all subjection and dependence, or rather a trumpet of defiance against whatever Power, Spiritual or Civil; which we do abhor and detest….” 22 See, for example, A Copy of a remonstrance lately delivered in to the assembly by Thomas Goodwin, Ierem. Burroughs [sic], William Greenhill, William Bridge, Philip Nie, Sidrach Simson, and William Carter declaring the grounds and reasons of their declining to bring into the assembly their modell of church-government. London, 1645. The remonstrance on page 6 refers to “the doctrinal principles wherein we differ about Church-Government....” 23 Paul, Assembly, 50. 24 Hudson, “Denominationalism,” 33. 25 Jordan, 3:365.

In 1617, Burroughs began his studies at Emmanuel College, Cambridge, which was considered the “nursery” for Puritan scholars and preachers.26 He earned his Bachelor of

Arts in 1621 and was awarded the Master of Arts degree in 1624. He was tutored at

Cambridge by Thomas Hooker and afterwards attended a private seminary at Hooker’s home in Chelmsford, while also serving in his first ministry role as a curate at All Saints in Sisted, Essex. After serving as a lecturer, or assistant preacher at Bury St. Edmunds,

Suffolk, from 1627 to 1631, he became rector at St. Margaret’s in Tivetshall, Norfolk, until 1636. It was his only parish charge; in all other positions in England he served as a lecturer in positions financed by independent trusts or sponsors. As rector, Burroughs had declined to conform to such injunctions as reading the Book of Sports (a statement confirming certain disputed forms of recreation to be lawful on the Sabbath), bowing at the name of Jesus and reading certain set prayers. He was suspended from his ministry in

1636 and deprived of his “living” the following year. Later, Burroughs observed that he chose exile, and the deprivation of his income, so that he could freely enjoy “the

Ordinances of Christ, which we account our birth-right, and best portion in this life.”27

Like other non-conforming colleagues in the ministry, Burroughs went to Rotterdam, where many English exiles had joined in congregational churches sanctioned and subsidized by Dutch authorities.28 From 1637 or 1638 to 1640, Burroughs was the teacher in the congregation led by William Bridge and formerly led by noted Puritan

26 Emmanuel College was described as a “nursery of Puritans” in an historical guide book by Reginald Ross Williamson, called Ackermann's Cambridge (London: Penguin Books, 1951). Most of the biographical details in this biography are provided by Burroughs’ biographer, Phillip Simpson, op. cit., and Joel R. Beeke, Meet the Puritans (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2006). 27 Narration. 28 Keith L. Sprunger, Dutch Puritanism: A History of English and Scottish Churches of the Netherlands in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1982), 168ff.

theologian William Ames, or Amesius (1576–1633), whose development of the practical aspects of doctrine informed many preachers and teachers. Burroughs was also preceded in his exile to Holland by his former mentor, Hooker, who would later take his brand of

Congregationalism to the new American frontier; first in Massachusetts, in 1633, and then in Hartford, in 1636, where he founded a settlement in what would become the

Colony of Connecticut.29 In Amsterdam, Hooker’s role as a Congregational pastor was controversial. In defence of his views on doctrine and church authority, he penned what historian Raymond Phineas Stearns considered “one of the earliest expositions of the vital differences of opinion between Congregationalists and Presbyterians, foreshadowing later disputes of the English Civil Wars and many ecclesiastical problems of New England.”30

More than 30 semi-autonomous English congregations were worshipping in Holland, with the approval and financial support of the Dutch church. George Yule, retired professor of church history at the University of Aberdeen, noted these were ostensibly governed by a classis under a Presbyterian model of government, yet in practice were largely left to manage their own affairs.31

On his return to England, and concurrent with his service in the Assembly, Burroughs was appointed the morning Lecturer at Stepney and the afternoon lecturer at St. Giles’,

Cripplegate; these were among the largest congregations in the vicinity of London.

29 “1636: Hartford,” The Society of Colonial Wars in the State of Connecticut, http://colonialwarsct.org/1636.htm, accessed February 14, 2014. 30 “Mr. Pagetts 20 Propositions to Mr. Hooker with his Answere thereto,” in Raymond Phineas Stearns, Congregationalism in the Dutch Netherlands: The Rise and Fall of the English Congregational Classis, 1621-1635, Studies in Church History, IV (Chicago: The American Society of Church History, 1940), v. Paggett, or Paget, was a Presbyterian minister of an English congregation in Amsterdam. See Stearns, 27-30, for a summary of his disagreement with Hooker. 31 George Yule, Puritans in Politics: The Religious Legislation of the Long Parliament 1640-1647 (Appleford, Oxfordshire: Sutton Courtenay Press, 1981), 96.

During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the work of preachers in parish pulpits was supplemented by a paid lecture circuit.32 Conforming and non-conforming ministers who had been ordained in the Church of England filled lectureships in particular churches that were privately endowed. The practice of attending additional sermons outside of the parish service was called gadding and the term was usually pejorative.33 Often called

“corporation sermons,” because they were financed by lay trusts or corporations, these were common on market days,34 when people gathered in the “market towns” to buy and sells goods. After his appointment ended at St. Giles’, Burroughs became the afternoon lecturer at St. Michael’s, Cornhill. It was there that he delivered a series of lectures on

“Heart-divisions” in the church, which sealed his reputation as an advocate for peaceable relations among Christians. An annotated edition of these lectures was published under the title Irenicum, just before his death from injuries sustained by falling from a horse. He was married at the time.35

32 See Paul S. Seaver, The Puritan Lectureships: The Politics of Religious Dissent, 1560-1562 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1970). 33 R. J. Acheson, Radical Puritans in England: 1550-1660 (London; New York: Longman, 1989), 102. 34 Acheson, 101. 35 Simpson, 281. Note, Simpson dates the publication of Irenicum in 1646. See the discussion on the text of Irenicum in chapter 2.

2. Political and Ecclesial Context

The beginning of the decade of the 1640s is often seen as a new episode or a turning point in the history of the church in England and of the Puritan movement. Oxford historian Christopher Hill suggested “the middle decades of the seventeenth century saw the greatest upheaval that has yet occurred in Britain” and that from approximately “1645 to 1653, there was a great overturning, questioning, revaluing, of everything in England”

– calling into question “institutions,” “beliefs,” and “values.”36 Burroughs’ Irenicum was published in 1645, on the cusp of this upheaval, and he died the following year.

Keith Sprunger characterised the preceding “middle span of Puritanism” in England, from 1590 to 1640, as ‘Fabian’ Puritanism.37 Prior to the 1590s, the Puritan movement emerged as a reforming element in the English church as it swung back and forth between Catholicism (under Henry VIII and Mary I) and Protestantism (under Edward

VI) before settling somewhere in between in what is known as the Elizabethan

Settlement. In the ensuing decades, as church leaders demanded conformity in matter of worship, Puritans turned their attention to the social aspects of reform. In the assessment of Patrick Collinson, the recently deceased former Regius Professor of Modern History in the University of Cambridge, Puritans turned their attention from the formalities of

36 Christopher Hill, The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas During the English Revolution (London: Penguin, 1975), 13-14; see also his The English Bible and the Seventeenth-Century Revolution (London: Allen Lane/Penguin, 1993). 37 Keith L. Sprunger, The Learned Doctor William Ames: Dutch Backgrounds of English and American Puritanism (Chicago: University of Illinois, Press, 1972), 4-5. For a discussion of the use of the term “Puritan” in historical studies, see Richard L. Greaves, “The Puritan-Nonconformist Tradition in England, 1560-1700: Historiographical Reflections,” Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies 17, no. 4 (Winter 1985): 449-86.

worship to “the reformation of towns, parishes, families and individuals.”38 Jordan observed that the “relaxation of ecclesiastical authority in 1640 resulted almost immediately in the dissolution of English Puritanism into its constituent elements.”39 The

“elements” that are of concern in this study are Congregationalists (called “Independents” in a political context) and Presbyterians. General and Calvinistic Baptists, and “Quakers,” comprise the other streams of English dissent at this time. Congregationalists advocated for semi-autonomous, self-disciplining churches whose members nevertheless affirmed the authority of the national church.

Burroughs interpreted his own milieu in the early to mid-1640s as one characterized by division, but also relative freedom.

… we lately were under sore and cruel bondage, nothing was more dangerous than the worshipping God in his own way, we were under hard Task-masters, oppressing, undoing Courts; The Lord hath in a great measure delivered us, it is the unthankfulness, the sinful distemper of men’s spirits that makes them say, what is done? it is as ill with us as ever it was; No, we have much ease, such liberties, as were our fore-fathers raised out of their graves to see, they would admire God’s goodness, and bless him with meltings of heart; but we spend that strength in siding, wrangling, contending, quarrelling, vexing, opposing one another, that we should spend in magnifying, blessing and praising the Name of God for that mercy we enjoy. We are a divided people, whose hearts are divided, and heads too, and hands too; peace and unity seems to be flown from us, and a spirit of contention and division is come upon us: King & Subjects are divided, Parl. is divided, Assembly is divided, Armies are divided, Church is divided, & State is divided, City is divided, Country is divided, Towns are divided, Families divided, godly people are divided, Ministers almost everywhere are divided; yea, and what heart almost is there at this time but is divided in itself? [Irenicum, 4.]

38 Patrick Collinson, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967, 1990), 433; cited by Sprunger, 5, who drew my attention to this quotation. 39 Jordan, 3:347; R. J. Acheson, Radical Puritans in England: 1550-1660 (London; New York: Longman, 1989), 46.

The “sore and cruel bondage” refers to the experience of nonconforming Protestants during the Personal Rule of Charles I, from 1629, when he dissolved Parliament, to 1640, when he recalled it. William Laud, after being made Archbishop of Canterbury in 1633, imposed strictures on ceremony and liturgy in the English church, which were enforced by the ecclesiastical Court of High Commission and the Star Chamber. R.J. Acheson includes a revealing table of statistics in his review of materials on English radical

Puritans.40 It summarizes charges of religious offences presented to the diocese of

Canterbury from 1590 to 1640. Alleged offences in certain categories peeked in the decade of 1630-1640: objections to the authorized Book of Common Prayer; going elsewhere for sermons; and participating in conventicles, or private gatherings for prayer and reading scripture. Refusal to kneel for the reception of the bread and wine at communion was a consistent cause of legal action throughout the seventeenth century. In some dioceses, clergy who encouraged or permitted acts of nonconformity were deprived of their “livings,” which was their remuneration for parish ministry.

As can been inferred from the above statistics, restrictions under Laud began to ease in

1640, when the king briefly recalled Parliament so he could raise money to prosecute war against the Scots (the Short Parliament); he recalled it a second time in the same year, for a longer period (hence, the Long Parliament).41 Immediately, Parliamentarians began to press for church reforms and sent the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud, to prison.

The “Root and Branch” Petition tabled in December of 1640 sought the abolition of

40 Acheson, Radical Puritans, 36. 41 These and many other dates are sourced from the thorough chronology included in the collection of essays edited by Alden T. Vaughan and Francis J. Bremer, Puritan New England: Essays on Religion, Society, and Culture (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1977), 385-393.

bishops in the Church of England. Parliament did not pass ordinances to establish

Presbyterianism as the new form of church polity until 1645 – the year Laud was executed for high treason – and it did not abolish the episcopate (the order of bishops) until October 9, 1646. From 1641 till then, however, bishops were removed from their seats in the Lords (the English “upper house” of Parliament), some were impeached, and

14 out of 26 bishops “had their temporal possessions sequestered by an ordinance of

March 1643.”42 Significantly, Archbishop Laud and Bishop Wren of Ely were impeached and imprisoned in 1641.43 Even so, bishops were still being consecrated until 1644.44 The first of the three English Civil Wars commenced in 1642. In 1643, Parliament ordered the formation of the Westminster Assembly to lay the foundation for a church of “godly rule.” John Morrill, Professor of British and Irish History at the University of Cambridge, has described how Parliamentarians also spent their effort in the 1640s trying to

“eradicate Anglican worship and observance.”45 Morrill judged this aspect of the Puritan campaign to be a “miserable failure,” because a great many parishioners stuck to their preferences. His thesis is that “Puritan non-conformity under Anglican harassment gave way to Anglican non-conformity under the Puritan yoke.”46

42 John Morrill, “The Church in England 1642-9,” in Reactions to the English Civil War 1642-1649, edited by John Morrill, 89-114 (New York: Saint Martin’s Press, 1983), 93. 43 Peter King, “The Episcopate During the Civil Wars, 1642-1649,” The English Historical Review 83, no. 328 (Jul 1968): 523. 44 King, 533. 45 Morrill, 89. 46 Morrill, 90.

A. The Westminster Assembly

The Westminster Assembly was created by, and answerable to, Parliament. Parliament appointed its 151 members, comprising 10 Lords (from the Upper House), 20 members of the House of Commons (the Lower House), and the rest clergy. As part of the military alliance, the Scots sent six commissioners to the Assembly – four ministers and two elders. During the course of the Assembly, three parties emerged within it: Presbyterians,

Independents (the political label attached to Congregationalists), and Erastians, “who held that it was the prerogative of the state to establish such a form of church government as might be most expedient.”47 In the assessment of Bradley and of Murray Tolmie, formerly associate professor of history at the University of British Columbia, these distinctions in party did not imply their ideas of government and authority were mutually exclusive. The Independents eventually came to see that civil control of church affairs would afford them greater liberty than a Presbyterian model. Presbyterians also differed among themselves as to whether their model of church government was “divinely ordained” and therefore “essential to faith” or simply “prudential.”48

The Presbyterian historian, S.W. Carruthers, studied other, often neglected, aspects of the

Assembly’s work, including vetting candidates for ordination and ministry, dealing with heretical preachers and extreme behaviours of religious leaders, and reviewing and

47 Thomas C. Pears, Jr, “Foreword,” in The Everyday Work of the Westminster Assembly, S. W. Carruthers, v-vii (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Historical Society, 1943), v-vi. 48 Bradley, 25. Bradley observes these concepts of Erastian, Presbyterian, and Independent philosophies were fluid during the early period of the Assembly.

passing judgement on heretical literature.49 According to Carruthers’ account, members were well occupied by complaints of heresy and odd religious antics following the collapse of church discipline in the early 1640s.50 His survey of Assembly minutes shows that its members recognized the authority of the Church of England and that Burroughs and several fellow Independents were in agreement that candidates for ordained ministry should acknowledge the Church of England to be a “true church.”51 Even while it was passing from an episcopal towards a Presbyterian form under the control of Parliament, it retained authority to ordain.52

As one of the so-called Five Dissenting Brethren (Paul counted seven),53 Burroughs advocated for a theological settlement that fizzled and died, but fanned the embers of religious toleration in England. As the decade of the 1640s advanced, so too did the political and religious momentum for a formal policy of toleration towards religious dissent. Religious toleration, in a radical and experimental form, was practised during the

Interregnum, between the execution of Charles I in 1649, on the order of Parliament, and the restoration of the monarchy, and religious uniformity, under Charles II in 1660.

Official toleration of nonconforming Protestant churches would not come until the passage of the Act of Toleration in 1689.

49 S. W. Carruthers, The Everyday Work of the Westminster Assembly (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Historical Society, 1943), 86ff, 120ff, 148ff. 50 Carruthers, 86-104. 51 They agreed that a question to this effect should be put to candidates for ordination. Carruthers observed that refusal to concur with this statement would isolate “the more extreme Separatists.” Carruthers, 154. 52 Carruthers, 154-6. 53 Paul, Assembly, 124.

B. Congregationalism

English Congregationalists grew up in the same soil as English Baptists, whose leading figures also agitated for policies of religious liberty and toleration.54 The early leader of

Baptists in London, Thomas Helwys (1575–c.1616), for instance, published a treatise on religious liberty in 1612 from Spitalfields.55 That parish borders on Stepney, to the east of London, where Burroughs was serving as lecturer at the time of his appointment to the

Assembly in 1643.56 By 1646, the year Burroughs died, there were a dozen or so

Independent churches in London and as many Baptist.57

The first decade of the seventeenth century is considered to mark the beginning of

English “Independency,” or Congregationalism, and the London congregation of Henry

Jacob is most often cited as the wellspring. Yule suggested the “originality” of this movement “lay in combining separatist practice with non-separatist theory.”

Congregationalists were distinguished, on their left, from various forms of separatist churches and, on their right, from Presbyterians and Episcopalians. While some historians have used the term “Anglican” in reference to the Church of England in this period, that

54 Timothy George, “Between Pacifism and Coercion: The English Baptist Doctrine of Religious Toleration,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 58, no. 1 (Jan 1984): 30-49. 55 Thomas Helwys, A shorte declaration of the mistery of iniquity (Spitalfields, England, 1612). It called for tolerance of religious liberty by the king, but sharply rebuked moderate Puritans and the Church of England. 56 United Kingdom. “Stepney.” The Environs of London: volume 3: County of Middlesex (1795), 418-88. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=45447&strquery=jeremiah burroughs, accessed February 13, 2014; United Kingdom. “June 1643: An Ordinance for the calling of an Assembly of Learned and Godly Divines, to be consulted with by the Parliament, for the settling of the Government of the Church”, Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642-1660 (1911), 180-84. URL: http://www.british- history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=55828&strquery=jeremiah burroughs, accessed February 13, 2014. 57 Murray Tolmie, The Triumph of the Saints: The Separate Churches of London, 1616-1649 (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 122. In the same list, c. 1640s, Tolmie included a further nine congregations led by lay pastors.

term came into vogue much later and is anachronistic. While “Episcopalian” is typically an American term for the legacy of the Church of England in the United States, it will be used in this study in preference to “Anglican” as a way of distinguishing between groupings within the Church of England. In the period in question, the English church was being reformed along Presbyterian lines, but remained a national church and continued to exert authority until the abolition of bishops in 1646. Furthermore, as

Stearns underscored, English Congregationalists “neither denied that the Anglican church was a true church nor professed separation from it…”58

Burroughs died before the execution of Charles I and the beginning of the

Commonwealth – a period typically known as the Puritan Revolution. Scholars of the seventeenth century have tended to treat Independency in its more mature form, but

Burroughs’ moderate views on church polity, with only limited support for religious liberty, are not readily recognizable in the later expressions of Independency, which clarified and formalized some of the earlier tendencies. The year after Burroughs’ death,

John Cook published a tract called What the Independents would have, summarizing the arguments for independent churches, freely gathered and freely governed.59 Cooke explained the Independents’ desire to be free to choose when, where and how to worship, and with whom, and to be exempt “from the jurisdiction of all prelates and ecclesiastical officers,” except any of their own choosing, and be subject instead to the magistrate and civil government. He constructed a warrant for this claim by drawing an analogy between

58 Stearns, 3-4. 59 John Cook, What the Independents would have, or, A character, declaring some of their tenents, and their desires to disabuse those who speak ill of that they know not. / Written by John Cook of Grays Inne Barrister (London: Printed for Giles Calvert, 1647).

polity and doctrine, both of which had to be kept pure from human taint. Just as the work of Jesus was the ground for salvation, and could not be compromised by human works, so too in the realm of church government. Independent-minded Christians wanted no mediation between them and Jesus the King. As Cook would have it: “the question truly stated, is but this; whether the inventions of men ought any more to be mixed with the

Institutions of Christ in his Kingly Office, than their good works in his Priestly Office.”

Cook based his analogy on the threefold office of Jesus as prophet, priest and king, a typology that would have been readily recognized and accepted. Calvin had treated the traditional doctrine of the twofold offices (priest and king) in the first Latin edition of the

Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536). He developed the threefold distinction in the second Latin edition (1539) and included it in the 1541 Geneva Catechism.60 The doctrine was also incorporated in the Heidelberg Catechism (1563)61. The Westminster

Assembly enshrined the three offices of “Christ as Mediator” within its Larger Catechism

(Q. 42-43) and the Short Catechism (Q. 23-26), as did the Baptists in London in their

Confession of Faith.62

60 John Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism: A Commentary, Columbia Series in Reformed Theology (Lousiville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 119. There was significant development of the content of The Institutes, which appeared in successive Latin editions from 1536 to 1559. The first French edition was published in 1541. 61 “Threefold Office” (Munus Triplex), in Historical Dictionary of the Reformed Churches, Robert Benedetto and Donald K. McKim, 480-1, 2nd ed. (Plymouth, UK: Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2010). For the development of the doctrine, see Geoffrey Wainwright, For our Salvation – Two Approaches to the Work of Christ, part II: “The Threefold Office” (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.; London:

SPCK, 1997). 62 The [Westminster] Confession of Faith; the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, with the Scripture- Proofs at Large: Together with The Sum of Saving Knowledge, etc. (Belfast: Graham and Heslip, Ltd, 1933)s; London Confession of Faith, 1644, in Confessions of Faith and other Public Documents Illustrative of the History of the Baptist Churches of England in the Seventeenth Century, edited by Edward Bean Underhill (London: Haddon Brothers & Co., 1854).

Paul defined the members of the “Congregational Way” by their “doctrine of the Church with ecclesiastical discipline at its centre” and the expression of this doctrine in worship.63 The right to discipline flowed from the authority vested in all the gathered members of the congregation who freely agreed to worship together as a church. This was no sheer voluntarism, however. Tolmie studied the independently gathered churches in London in the first half of the seventeenth century. His work offers a profile of the first

Congregational pastor in London, Henry Jacob, and an outline of his doctrine of the church, in which God’s spiritual power inheres in the duly constituted local congregation.64 A reading of Burroughs’ Irenicum bears out this same emphasis on the spiritual nature of church discipline and authority, which is of a different kind and origin that the administration of the state. Paul similarly observed that Congregationalists in the

Assembly distinguished between the political nature of the government of the magistrate and the “spiritual” government of the church. They understood the latter to arise from the covenantal promises and gifts of God.65 As noted by Yule, the Congregationalists’ first doctrinal statement, the Savoy Declaration of 1658, closely mirrored the Westminster

Confession, with some modifications to suit a Congregational polity. It also emphasized the spiritual prerogatives of the local church.66

63 Paul, “Worship and Discipline,” 150. 64 Tolmie, The Triumph of the Saints, 9ff. 65 Paul, “Worship and Discipline,” 151. 66 See the “The Institution of Churches” in the “Savoy Declaration,” the full title of which is A Declaration of the Faith and Order Owned and Practiced in the Congregational Churches in England; Agreed Upon and Consented Unto by their Elders and Messengers in their Meeting at The Savoy, Octob. 12, 1658. London, 1959. See also Yule, The Independents, 12-13.

C. Presbyterianism

English Presbyterians at the time understood the God-given authority of the church differently. Bradley, whose dissertation was on the subject of Presbyterians and

Independents in the Assembly, has identified differing strains within the Presbyterian majority.67 The original model of the Scottish Presbyterian “discipline” embraced the ideas of Andrew Melville (1545–1622), who led the Scottish Reformed Church after John

Knox and who replaced the order of bishops with presbyteries.68 This manner of church government was comprised of a hierarchy of authority, from congregations up to a national assembly. Each congregation chose members to form a presbytery. A classis represented congregations within a region. The provincial synod represented the next level of authority and above it was the national assembly. Bradley noted that the

“Scottish system stressed Melville’s ‘Two Kingdom Theory’, namely, that the civil and ecclesiastical powers were separate, and that whilst the civil magistrate must maintain the church’s independence, he could have no power over church discipline….”

In England, by contrast, some advocates of a Presbyterian system supposed it could coexist with a reformed Episcopacy.69 Others held to an “Erastian” model that accorded more authority to the magistrate. Thomas Goodwin, who was the recognized leader on matters of church policy among the Dissenting Brethren, had argued that church authority and discipline were inseparably located within the worshipping community of the local

67 Bradley, “The Failure of Accommodation,” 24ff. 68 “Andrew Melville,” in Encyclopædia Britannica, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/374223/Andrew-Melville, accessed January 8, 2014. 69 Bradley, 24-5.

congregation.70 Their opponents argued “the churches combined under one presbytery were a unified whole, and that Presbyterian authority was aggregative, intrinsically derived from the congregations.”71 In March 1644, noted Bradley, “votes were passed on

Scriptural proofs that, the several congregations of Jerusalem being one church, and the elders of that church . . . meeting for acts of government, prove that these several congregations were under one Presbyterial [sic] government.”72

D. Political and Religious Accommodation

Parliament established a committee of accommodation for a few months towards the end

1644 and again for a brief period from late 1645 to early 1646. The parliamentary order concerned “those Divines of the Assembly that are of a contrary Opinion concerning

Church Government” and it read:

That the Committee of Lords and Commons appointed to treat with the Commissioners of Scotland, and the Committee of the Assembly, do take into Consideration the Differences in Opinion of the Members of the Assembly in point of Church Government; and to endeavour a Union if it be possible; and, in case that cannot be done, to endeavour the finding out some ways how far tender Consciences, who cannot in all Things submit to the common Rule which shall be established, may be borne with, according to the Word, and as may stand with the publick Peace, that so the Proceedings of the Assembly may not be so much retarded.73

Through this committee, the Independents sought the right of a congregation to control whether a church officer could excommunicate a member; the right for general members

70 Bradley, 37. 71 Bradley, 37. 72 Bradley, 38. 73 United Kingdom, House of Commons Journal, vol. 3:13, September 13, 1644, Journal of the House of Commons: volume 3: 1643-1644 (1802), 625-27. URL: http://www.british- history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=2774&strquery=tender, accessed February 13, 2014.

to ordain an officer; the limitation of synods to issuing advice, not executing power; and that members of a church could be gathered regardless of parochial boundaries.74 The

Independents failed to win the concessions for their form of church discipline and

Bradley has maintained that this committee “succeeded in little else but making differences more apparent and hardening attitudes.”75 Eventually, the Dissenting Brethren gravitated to an Erastian model after it became clear that their model of church government could not be accommodated within a national Presbyterian church. Bradley observed that the small group of Dissenting Brethren came to realize they would gain more liberty from a policy of toleration exercised through “civil control over church government” than they would under a strict Presbyterian rule.76

3. Burroughs’ Doctrine of the Church

One of the key “Independent” positions was to limit the ruling power of ministers to the pastoral charge in which they “fed” their people with Word and sacraments; whereas

Presbyterianism conferred the oversight of multiple congregations to a classis or synod.

Congregationalists also opposed the use of coercion, by the church or magistrates, against believers who worshipped in a non-confirming yet peaceful manner. A third desire was to exercise some degree of discretion over church membership and participation in

74 Bradley, 40. 75 Bradley, 40. 76 Bradley, 46-47.

Communion, by seeking evidence of “some work of God upon their hearts that accompanies Salvation.”77

As an advocate of congregational church polity, Burroughs was willing to accept the oversight of a synod on an escalating scale of six methods of discipline: to request congregations to give an account of their practices; to respond to “errors, schisms, and scandals”; to admonish evil; to “declare men or churches to be subverters of the faith, or otherwise, according to the nature of the offence, to shame them before all the churches about them”; “by a solemn act in the name of Jesus Christ, refuse any further communion with them till they repent”; further, they may declare “that these erring people or churches are not to be received into fellowship with any of the churches, nor to have communion with one another in the ordinances of Christ.” [Irenicum, 7] A seventh point on this scale of discipline was the “very knot of the controversy between those who are for the Presbyterian and those who are for the congregational way….” Burroughs regarded the sixth measure as the “utmost censure the church now has.” He strongly maintained that the church’s discipline was spiritual in nature, intended to act on an errant conscience. Remedies for correcting the behaviour of the “outward man” rested with magistrates, not the church. As he understood the issue at hand, Presbyterians believed synods should command another measure of discipline, as practised by Paul, but questioned by Burroughs as possibly being a prerogative of the apostles that was not intended to extend beyond them. This was the practice described in scripture as

77 A Vindication of Mr Burroughes, against Mr Edwards his foule aspersions in his spreading Gangraena, and his angry Antapologia. Concluding with a briefe declaration what the Independents would have (London, 1646), cited in Paul, Assembly, 480-81, n. 51.

“handing” church members to Satan for the purging of “the flesh” and the curing of

“blasphemy”.78 Burroughs addressed this question in detail in chapter 7 of Irenicum.

4. Burroughs’ Views on Worship and Discipline

Burroughs held a high view of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper and endorsed the

Puritan practice of “fencing the table,” as it were, to exclude “unworthy” communicants.

In his published series of lectures on worship, Burroughs described the rite as “the

Ordinance of Separating the precious from the vile, the Ordinance of casting out the wicked and ungodly.”79 In addition to urging communicants to be vigilant in detecting and purging the “wicked” from their congregations, he also exhorted them to be

“inquisitors” of their own souls, to detect sin and approach their participation in the sacrament with a “broken” heart. “[T]he main thing by which the soul must come to break it’s (sic) heart, must [be] the beholding of the evil of sin in the red glass of the blood of Jesus Christ, the beholding him broken….”80 For as Burroughs taught: “you have Christ crucified before you in the way of a Sacrament, in the way of a solemn institution of Jesus Christ, that hath a special blessing which goes along with it….”81 This

78 The two scriptural texts in question were 1 Corinthians 5:4-5 and 1 Timothy 1:20. 79 Burroughs, Gospel Worship, Or, the Right Manner of Sanctifying the Name of God: In General, and Particularly in these 3 Great Ordinances: 1. Hearing the Word, 2. Receiving the Lord’s Supper, 3. Prayer (London, 1648); “Sermon” XI, 237. Italic original. This illustrates the Puritan desire to “fence the table,” by which they meant choosing who could and could not participate in the Lord’s Supper. See Horton Davies, “The Lord’s Supper in the Congregational Christian Tradition,” Prism 1 no. 2 (Sept 1986), 28-36. 80 Burroughs, Worship, 246. 81 Burroughs, Worship, 248.

beholding, or seeing, is “a real, evident, and sensible setting forth of Christ crucified,”82 and the eating and drinking his body and blood are a “work of faith.”83

But now where the eye of Faith is, there is a real appearance of Jesus Christ to the soul, as if Christ were bodily present, and we need not have the bread turned into his body; for Faith can see the body of Christ through the bread, and the blood of Christ gushing in the wine.”84

It is not apparent that Burroughs regarded Jesus to be objectively present in the elements, but rather spiritually, in their reception. Along with Calvin, he would fit within Horton

Davies’ term “dynamic receptionism”85 as a way of describing this understanding of how grace is conveyed in the Eucharist. Burroughs regarded this sacrament as a means of grace and a way of imparting the benefits of Jesus’ death and resurrection. In his series of sermons, Burroughs extolled the role of the Word in worship, yet suggested more immediate personal benefits were applied to believers when they participated in the

Lord’s Supper.86 Also typical of English Puritans,87 Burroughs taught that when

Christians “come to this Ordinance, they come to seal a Covenant with God….”88 He regarded the Supper as being given for the “nourishment” of those who had been

“converted” by the preaching of the Word. Burroughs referred to this act of worship as an ordinance and a sacrament and distinguished between a common meal, where God is present, and the sacramental presence of Jesus at the Lord’s Supper, which is made “real” when bread and wine are received with faith. In these actions, the elements were to be

82 Burroughs, Worship, 248. 83 Burroughs, Worship, 254. 84 Burroughs, Worship, 252. 85 Horton Davies, Worship and Theology in England: From Cranmer to Baxter and Fox, 1534-1690, vol 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1996), 286. For a fuller treatment of Puritan theology of the Lord’s Supper, see Davies, 286-325. 86 Burroughs, Worship, 232ff. 87 See, for example, Davies, “The Lord’s Supper,” 28ff. 88 Burroughs, Worship, 226.

received “sacra mente” – “with a holy mind.”89 He also likened a sacrament to a “solemn oath” taken by soldiers.90

Burroughs and his fellow authors of the Apologetical Narration attached such importance to the Lord’s Supper that they premised their decision to leave England for Holland on the fact that they could not freely celebrate it. The authors noted that during the

“persecution” of the 1630s they were deprived of their call to ordained ministry and some chose exile in Holland “that so the use and exercise of our Ministries (for which we were born and live) might not be wholly lost, nor our selves remain debarred from the enjoyment of the Ordinances of Christ, which we account our birth-right, and best portion in this life.” The same over-arching interest in the act of communion in worship also informed their conciliatory statements in the Narration. Looking back over the causes that led to their exile, they professed to have maintained the bonds of peace with the

Church of England.

Yea we always have professed, and that in these times when the Churches of England were the most, either actually overspread with defilements, or in the greatest danger thereof, and when our selves had least, yea no hopes of ever so much as visiting our own land again in peace and safety to our persons; that we both did and would hold a communion with them as the Churches of Christ.91

As a testimony to this fellowship with the national church, the authors pointed out that even after joining with gathered churches, some of them had their children baptized in

“Parishional congregations.”92 Their Narration explained that their order of worship in

Holland followed a typical Reformed service. The church officers were pastors, teachers,

89 Burroughs, Worship, 225. 90 Burroughs, Worship, 226. 91 Narration, 2. 92 Narration, 6.

ruling elders and deacons, the first three of which were “not lay but Ecclesiastic persons separated to that service.”93 In “the matter of government and censures of the Church,” the authors provided a clear statement of the principles for discipline and the boundaries of tolerance within the congregation. This will be quoted in full, because the particular expression of their ideas might easily be lost in a paraphrase. Also, this set of principles furnishes two bookends for Burroughs’ thought: one being the exclusion of unworthy communicants from the Lord’s Supper and the other being his encouragement to tolerate differences of opinion to the fullest possible extent.

… we had nor executed any other but what all acknowledge, namely, Admonition, and Excommunication, upon obstinacy and impenitency, (which we bless God we never exercised.) This latter we judged should be put in execution, for no other kind of sins than may evidently be presumed to be perpetrated against the parties’ known light; as whether it be a sin in manners and conversation, such as is committed against the light of nature, or the common received practices of Christianity, professed in all the Churches of Christ; or if in opinions, then such, as are likewise contrary to the received principles of Christianity, and the power of godliness, professed by the party himself, and universally acknowledged in all the rest of the churches, and no other sins to be the subject of that dreadful sentence.94

That statement serves as an adequate explanation of what Burroughs would have accepted as the limits of toleration within a congregational fellowship. Any such fellowship of a gathered, independent church in England, however, presupposed that it would be either tolerated or somehow accommodated within the policies of church and state. That was the campaign taken up by the Independents. In his Irenicum, Burroughs was no doubt setting out an apology for why divergent, congregational practices ought to be accommodated within a comprehensive national church.

93 Narration, 8. 94 Narration, 8-9.

5. Hermeneutics

A. Reading the Bible

Parishioners and the auditors of lay lectures, such as those delivered by Burroughs, were hungry for scriptural wisdom. Well-educated clergy were graduating from the colleges of

Cambridge and Oxford Universities and pulpit preaching was being supplemented by a circuit of lectureships filled by ordained ministers, both Puritan and Conformist.95 Pious parishioners were “gadding” to more than one sermon on a Sunday. The book trade was thriving; religious pamphlets were being issued with vigour as censorship of the “press” was relaxed; and huge volumes of expository sermons were being published. Burroughs’ principal work in print at this time was his series of expository lectures on the biblical book of Hosea. The publication of the first set of these lectures, in 1643, covered the first three chapters of Hosea and ran to 750 pages.96 Not only was it expansive, it demonstrated Burroughs’ knowledge of Greek, Hebrew and Latin, his familiarity with the

Septuagint and the Vulgate, and an awareness of the works of church fathers.

Burroughs’ citations in Irenicum suggest he favoured the Authorized Version, more commonly known as “the King James.” The Introduction to the 1611 Authorized Version

95 Seaver, 196-98; 276-80; 310. 96 An exposition of the prophesie of Hosea. Begun in divers lectures vpon the first three chapters, at Michaels Cornhill, London. By Jer. Burroughes (London, 1643). The first 13 lectures were published in four series, from 1643 to 1650. The published lectures that are referred to in Chapter 3 of this study were published later in the series, after the publication of Burroughs’ Irenicum. The series was not finished when he died and it was completed by colleagues Thomas Hall and Edward Reynolds. For the completed work, see An Exposition of the Prophecy of Hosea (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2006), reprinted from the 1863 edition, apparently edited by James Sherman and published in Edinburgh by James Nichol.

established a rule of humility for interpreting difficult or opaque passages of scripture.

The following abbreviated quotation explained the need for marginal notes to draw readers’ attention to variant translations and to the mechanics of the process of interpreting scripture. It also established the rationale for distinguishing between clear and essential doctrine and scriptures open to different interpretations. As can be seen, the

Introduction was tailored for well-educated and committed readers of scripture.

Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgement not to be so sound in this point. For though, whatsoever things are necessary are manifest, as S. Chrysostom saith, and as S. Augustine, in those things that are plainly set down in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concern Faith, Hope, and Charity. Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from loathing of them for their every-where- plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God’s spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should bee, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence… For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption.97

Since Burroughs’ scriptural citations in Irenicum conform to the Authorized usage, it is reasonable to presume he was familiar with the principles set out in the Introduction. As a member of the Assembly, he would have been well-versed in the principles for

97 “1611 King James Bible Introduction,” King James Bible Online, http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/1611-King-James-Bible-Introduction.php, accessed February 12, 2014. See also the comments by F.F. Bruce in The English Bible: A History of Translations (London: Lutterworth Press, 1961), 102-3. In God’s Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible (New York: HarperCollins, 2003), the author Adam Nicholson remarked that the king’s instructions to avoid fixing the meaning of the text in marginal notes made this Bible an “irenicon, an organism that absorbed and integrated difference, that included ambiguity and by doing so established peace (77.)”

interpreting scripture laid out in the first chapter of the Westminster Confession. Of these, sections 1.VI and 1.VII are most pertinent to this discussion:

VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

The last two points in the same chapter are also of interest:

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.98

98 Burroughs would also have been familiar with the Church of England’s teaching on scripture, as set out in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Faith and in “A Fruitful Exhortation to the Reading and Knowledge of Scripture,” which was one of the authorized homilies introduced in 1653 by Elizabeth I to teach doctrine in the church. See Church of England, Sermons or Homilies Appointed to Be Read in Churches in the Time of Queen Elizabeth of Famous Memory (London: C. & J. Rivington, 1825), 1:1.

B. Puritans and Paul

John Coolidge, Emeritus Professor of English at the University of California, has argued that “a Pauline understanding of scripture” is “the matrix of Puritan thought” and that the

“Puritans’ expositions of the combined Pauline imperatives of liberty and edification illustrate the best sense of their insistence on scriptural authority and their conception of the living Church.”99 Coolidge also observed the discordance between historical critical method and pre-Enlightenment hermeneutics that presupposed the “unity” of meaning in scripture. This disjuncture might make it hard to establish the grounds on which Puritan exposition of scripture could be regarded as valid by modern criteria. Coolidge’s study emphasised the Puritan use of Pauline teaching on the new life “in Christ.” The Puritan application of Paul’s teaching to their situation could provide a link between hermeneutics in an historical context and hermeneutics in the service of the church today.

Coolidge perceived a “dynamic unity in diversity” in Paul’s letters to the churches, which

Puritans appreciated and from which they “learned how to interpret the whole…”100 It would appear Burroughs shared this appreciation of Paul. He certainly regarded Paul as the Apostle with authority to interpret scripture and to articulate Apostolic “Rules” to

“build up” the churches.101 In the following chapter it will be seen how Burroughs developed and applied certain of these Apostolic “Rules” in his Irenicum.

99 John S. Coolidge, The Pauline Renaissance in England: Puritanism and the Bible (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970), vii, xiii. 100 Coolidge, xiv. 101 This Pauline expression was much loved by Puritans, as noted by Coolidge. See The Pauline Renaissance, especially 23-53.

Chapter 2: IRENICISM AND ADIAPHORA

1. Irenicism

Howard Louthan, history professor and affiliate faculty member in Religion at the

University of Florida, and Randall Zachman, Professor of Reformation Studies at the

University of Notre Dame, recently published a collection of essays dealing with moderate and “irenic” theologians, primarily in the sixteenth century. They distinguished between toleration as a “pragmatic and often less than satisfactory political solution to pressing problems of confessional coexistence” and “conciliation as a more positive and constructive search for religious unity and theological rapprochement within the Christian community.”102 The authors described their field of research as “problematic,” however, because the two related, but distinct, concepts were often “conflated” in studies of religious toleration. Conciliation, used in this sense, provides a broad, but useful, way to delineate the core idea explored in this study.

In a brief essay on the topic, Guillaume H.M. Posthumus Meyjes, a scholar of Hugo

Grotius and his irenic theology, defined irenicism as “the endeavour to allay or to reconcile tensions or divisions between the confessions in a peaceful way.”103 Understood

102 Howard P. Louthan and Randall C. Zachman, “Introduction,” in Conciliation and Confession: The Struggle for Unity in the Age of Reform, 1415-1648, edited by Howard P. Louthan and Randall C. Zachman, 1-12 (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004), 2. 103 G.H.M. Posthumus Meyjes, “Protestant Irenicism in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,” in Commission internationale d’histoire ecclésiastique compare, Colloquium, University of Durham, 1981, The End of Strife: Papers Selected from the Proceedings of the Colloquium of the commission internationale d’histoire ecclésiastique comparée held at University of Durham 2 to 9

in this way, Meyjes considered the concept to be “close” to the “broader” idea of religious tolerance, although he noted that “advocates of irencism” did not necessarily embrace full toleration of religion as an ideal. Meyjes named Erasmus as the intellectual source of the Protestant irenic tradition.104 As an early moderate reformer with Protestant and Catholic sympathies, Erasmus advocated for conciliatory church policies, rejected forms of religious coercion and, in his own words, pursued a course of “peace and unanimity.”105 The mediating role in doctrinal debates played by the Strasbourg reformer,

Martin Bucer (1491–1551), also places him among the irenic theologians of the

Reformation, although he has been derided for doctrinal flexibility as much as praised for his conciliating influence in an era marked by confessional disputes.106

Howard Hotson, a history professor at the University of Oxford, surveyed irenic literature published in Europe (but not England) in the Reformed and Lutheran traditions from the middle of the sixteenth century to the middle of the seventeenth century.107 In Hotson’s study, irenicism referred to conciliating or “pacifying” overtures intended to preserve or restore unity in the church. The key “irenicists” he identified in this period were the

Reformed theologian David Pareus (1548–1622) in Heidelberg; his Moravian student,

Jan Amos Comenius (1592–1670); Comenius’ Scottish friend John Dury (1596–1680);

September, 1981, ed. by David Loades on behalf of the British Sub-Commission of C.I.H.E.C., 77-93 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1984), 78. 104 Meyjes, 82. 105 Desiderius Erasmus, Opus Epistolarum Des. Erasmii Roterodami, edited by P.S. Allen and H.M. Allen, 5 vols (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924) 5:177; cited in Meyjes, 82. 106 See, for example, Brian Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification: Reformation Theology and Early Modern Irenicism (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 3-8. 107 Howard Hotson, “Irenicism in the Confessional Age,” in Conciliation and Confession: The Struggle for Unity in the Age of Reform, 1415-1648, edited by Howard P. Louthan and Randall C. Zachman, 228-285 (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004).

and Lutheran theologian Georg Calixt (1586–1656).108 Hotson concluded that irenicism was “the subject of great debates, enormous efforts, and a substantial body of literature”109 from the onset of the confessional divisions arising out of the Protestant

Reformation to the latter part of the seventeenth century, when they subsided with

Enlightenment attitudes towards toleration and religious pluralism. Hotson found most of these overtures came from the side of Reformed churchmen and were rebuffed by

Lutherans. Irenic proposals and treatises typically addressed division between Lutherans and the Reformed and only in relatively few instance the relations between Protestants and Catholics.110 Hotson identified the Irenicum of Pareus as “the single most important work of this whole tradition.”111 It was published in Heidelberg in 1614, promoted at the

Frankfurt book fair that year, issued in Latin, German and Dutch editions the following year and immediately garnered the attention of theologians who spoke out and wrote against Pareus’ proposal for peaceful co-existence across the divide of the Lutheran and

Reformed confessional groupings.

Pareus was a German Reformed professor of theology at the University of Heidelberg. In his Irenicum, Pareus proposed to unite Reformed and Lutherans in an evangelical synod.

He was an “irenic spirit,” illustrated by his desire to breach the divide with Lutherans by having Reformed churches adopt the notions of “essential” and “substantial” to describe the presence of the Risen Lord in their doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. Such terms would

108 Hotson, 229. 109 Hotson, 231. 110 Hotson, 232ff. 111 Hotson, 233ff.

have brought the Reformed camp closer to their adversaries’ teaching about the corporeal presence of Jesus in the Supper, but the effort was rejected by “strict Calvinists.”112

As the classic expression of the irenic paradigm in his time, Pareus introduced arguments to “minimize” the “theological significance” of disputed points of doctrine. According to

Hotson, the “typical strategy” employed by irenic advocates “was to distinguish between essential and inessential doctrines, between those which are necessary for salvation and those which are not, and between fundamental and non-fundamental differences.”113

Pareus further distinguished between necessary articles of faith and matters of academic dispute.

Pareus, for example, distinguished between “articuli catholici,” which form the foundation of faith and salvation and must therefore be taught to all Christians, and “articuli theologici,” which pertain to theological knowledge proper to the profession of theologians but are not part of saving faith. The few questions separating the Evangelical churches [in the context at hand] belong to the category of inessential, non-fundamental, “theological” articles, which are not legitimate grounds for dividing the churches.114

His contemporary, John Dury, used the term “extrafundamental” to describe matters not essential to faith.115 Dury regarded each of the various post-Reformation confessional statements as a “stone of offence” and called for universal subscription to a “fundamental confession” as a way of restoring a spirit of unity in the church.116 Such a confession

112 See Julius Ney’s entry, “Pareus, David,” in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. VIII: Morality – Petersen, by Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1953), Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2000-02-09, vol.1, URL http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc08.htm 113 Hotson, 236. 114 Hotson, 236. 115 John Dury, Motives to induce the Protestant princes to mind the vvorke of peace ecclesiasticall amongst themselves/An information concerning the means of peace ecclesiastical (Amsterdam: Richt Right Press, 1639; London: Printed for William Hope, 1641), 17. 116 Dury, 22ff.

would have consisted of axioms on key biblical themes, principally the new covenant, and would have been akin to an encyclopedia.

Paul Chang-Ha Lim, associate professor of the History of Christianity at Vanderbilt

University, made some cursory observations about seventeenth-century English irenicism in his study of the Puritan ecclesiology of Richard Baxter (1615-1691).117 Lim observed that earlier church historians, such as Horton Davies and W.K. Jordan, regarded Baxter’s broad theological perspective as a positive contribution to ecumenism and irenicism.

Later historians have made more critical assessments of irenic works from this period, notably Peter Lake, history professor at Princeton University, and Anthony Milton, at the

University of Sheffield. They studied Dury and Bishop Joseph Hall (1574–1656), respectively, both of whom were moderates in their time.118

2. Adiaphora as an Instrument of Church Unity

The Greek term adiaphora (ἀδιάφορα), meaning “indifferent” things in Latin, and its

German equivalent, mitteldinge, meaning “middle things,” are terms of polemic and philosophy that have been invoked in church controversies to settle questions of authority in matters principally to do with worship and ceremony.119 To designate something as

117 Paul Chang-Ha Lim, In Pursuit of Purity, Unity, and Liberty: Richard Baxter’s Puritan Ecclesiology in its Seventeenth-Century Context (Leiden; Boston: E.J. Brill, 2004). 118 T. F. Kinloch, The Life and Works of Joseph Hall: 1574-1656 (London: Staples Press, 1951); Leonard D. Tourney, Joseph Hall, Twaayne’s English Authors Series (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1979); Grace Young, “John Dury,” Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/174393/John-Dury, accessed Jan 30, 2014. 119 See Bernard J. Verkamp, The Indifferent Mean: Adiaphorism in the English Reformation to 1554 (Athens, Ohio and Detroit, MI: Ohio University Press and Wayne State University Press, 1977);

adiaphora is to allow that it might be a discretionary matter in the context of church practice. In the course of English church history after the Reformation, there were profound disagreements over whether such discretionary matters should be decided by civil rule, church authority, or individual conscience informed by scripture. Bernard J.

Verkamp, who is the authority on the church use of this concept in the first half of the sixteenth century, noted the derivation of the term from “the Greek verb diapherem, ‘to differ’,” so that adiaphora designates “matters which ‘make no difference’ or are

‘indifferent’.” In Protestant usage, the term is implicitly qualified by reference to salvation and scripture, i.e., to matters on which the church or individual is free to decide, because scripture neither commands nor forbids such practices and which, as practices, have no bearing on salvation or justification. If scripture appears silent or there is no agreed interpretation, two questions naturally arise: By whose authority may the matter be settled and under what circumstance is such authority binding on individual believers or congregations within the wider church community? Adiaphora is therefore also a conceptual tool that at different points in time has been used with different effect to establish the boundaries of church authority and Christian freedom and to assert or curtail the authority of individual conscience in relation to ecclesial and civil demands for uniformity and conformity.

The use of adiaphora in arguments for or against particular practices has been applied to a range of church affairs to do with worship and sacraments in the history of the

Verkamp, “Limits upon Adiaphoristic Freedom: Luther and Melanchthon,” Theological Studies 36, no. 1 (March 1975), 52ff; Timothy J. Wengert, “Adiaphora and the Adiaphorist Controversies,” in The New Westminster Dictionary of Church History, vol. 1: The Early, Medieval, and Reformation Eras, Robert Benedetto, ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008), 7-8.

Protestant tradition. In these contexts, it has typically aroused strong passions in arguments about the interlocking roles of tradition and scripture, the proper locus of authority within or over the church, and the tension between Christian uniformity and liberty. The concept of adiaphora was applied by Martin Luther (1483–1546) and Philipp

Melanchthon (1497–1560) and qualified by a fellow Lutheran, Matthias Flacius Illyricus

(1520–1575). As noted by Verkamp, it was also adopted by English reformers to lessen the burden and diminish the theological weight of Catholic ceremony and ritual, in line with Protestant principles, while maintaining some such traditions out of sensitivity to popular piety or for the sake of peace. That is to say, certain moderate reformers in

Europe and England sought to “neutralize” rather than abolish all Catholic ceremony, while also requiring conformity with forms of worship, even in matters that were themselves adiaphora.

The term has its roots in Cynic and Stoic philosophy, where it denoted acts that were neither intrinsically good nor evil, but attained these positive or negative values through the intentions of the actor.120 In his classic study, The Indifferent Mean: Adiaphorism in the English Reformation to 1554, Verkamp noted that in Stoic understanding, internal dispositions were to be distinguished from external acts and that an action or disposition was good to the extent that it was “in accordance with nature.”121 The “interior disposition” determined the quality of an act or use of a thing as either “good or evil, right or wrong.” While some acts or things were genuinely indifferent, being inclined neither one way nor the other, other actions could be so inclined. Stoic philosophers

120 Verkamp, 20-21. 121 Verkamp, 160.

therefore distinguished between “preferred” and “rejected” adiaphora. Paul also distinguished between things that in and of themselves do not “matter,” but can provide opportunities for building up the congregation or for causing harm. His letters to the

Romans and Corinthians (Rom 14 and 1 Cor. 8:1-13 and 10:23-33) teach that some acts, such as eating food sacrificed to idols, may be permissible, yet to take up such liberty may induce fellow believers to violate their own understanding of what constitutes a sinful act. This sensitivity to the conscience of individual believers is evident in most debates concerning adiaphora.

The use of the term in church matters is by no means straightforward. Critics of Luther feared he was opening the way to antinomianism. As Verkamp acknowledged, Luther’s

“emphasis upon the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith alone was so strong that he was unable to escape the suspicion of teaching that everything but faith is indifferent.”122

Timothy Wengert, Professor of Reformation History at Lutheran Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, spelled out the danger of using the term imprecisely, as indicated in the following quote.

The Greek term ‘adiaphora’ refers to a category in Stoic ethics, which was employed directly by the Latin writer Cicero. It was translated into Latin as ‘indifferentia’, a technical term used even by Luther that should be translated not as ‘indifferent things’ (that is, as if the things under dispute do not matter) but as undifferentiated things, that is, things where one cannot determine whether they are right or wrong, true or false.123

122 Verkamp, “Limits,” 52ff. 123 See Reflections on the Bound Conscience in Lutheran Theology (Chicago, IL: ask Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality, 2009), http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Social-Issues/Social-Statements/JTF- Human-Sexuality/Resources.aspx, accessed April 1, 2012. Note, however, that in his Latin work, De conscientia et ejus jure, vel casibus libri quinque (John Adams, 1659), 147-150, William Ames used the Latinized forms of the Greek adiaphora, e.g., de adiaphoris, adiaphoræ, adiaphorum, in addition to indifferentia and declensions.

In his commentary on Paul’s letter to the Romans, the Lutheran theologian and New

Testament scholar Ernst Käsemann (1906–1998) maintained that Paul was not carving out a new sphere of acceptable behaviour by describing some matters as adiaphora.

Rather, it is within “precisely the field of the so-called adiaphora” that distinctions must be made, or criterion for discernment applied, “since in daily Christian life there can be no neutral ground … between the lordship of Christ and that of antichrist. If the world of things is to a large degree profane, the creatures of God that move in it and use it are not.”124 Käsemann’s point will be taken up again in Chapter 5 under the section

“Adiaphora and Discernment.”

A. The Early Lutheran Understanding

Luther’s nuanced treatment of “adiaphoristic liberty” and church reform, in which he was heavily influenced by the Pauline writings, is summarized by Verkamp:

It is right, Luther said, to boldly confront the obstinate papists with the fact of Christian liberty, but care must also be taken lest in the process the “weak” who lack a mature understanding of the faith be scandalized. Thus the law of charity may occasionally require that in the presence of “weaker” brethren the Christian, following the example of the Apostle Paul, bear with tyranny and exercise his adiaphoristic liberty only in secret, keeping it between himself and God.125

Wengert has noted that Luther applied the concept of adiaphora to justify the continued use of some Catholic practices in worship for the “sake of weak consciences and good order.”126 He also explored the pastoral and ethical dimensions of the way that Christian

124 Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980, 1994), 375-6. 125 Verkamp, “Limits,” 65. 126 Wengert, “Adiaphora and the Adiaphorist Controversies,” 7.

freedom was moderated in Luther’s thought by his understanding of the Pauline teaching on weak consciences. Wengert developed a related concept of “the bound conscience” to articulate this strain of Luther’s thought that seeks to balance Christian liberty with

Christian charity.

… the Word of God, as it is heard by the sinner-declared-saint, binds the conscience to it, [and] serves as a warning to Lutherans not to dismiss summarily the person who makes such a claim. We are neither pope nor emperor but fellow believers to one another. This means that we cannot simply assert one interpretation of Scripture over another but must always respect the conscience of others with whom we may disagree.127

As an example of the way this idea was worked out by Luther, Wengert cited the moderate reformer’s response to more radical leaders in Wittenberg who wanted to cleanse the church of all Catholic traces. He set Luther’s response in the context of

Pauline teaching on respecting brethren of the weaker faith and taking care not to lead them into sin by encouraging them to act against their own conscience. “Although Luther admitted that all these matters accorded with his own proposals and with the gospel,” wrote Wengert, “he objected to them because they were not done out of love and patience for those who were weak and who would follow such changes not because they believed they were true but because of the authority of the leaders of these changes.”

In the Lutheran context, a question of what rightfully constitutes matters designated adiaphora became cause for a dispute between Luther’s immediate theological heirs,

Melanchthon and Flacius Illyricus.128 The latter argued against making compromises with

127 Wengert, Reflections on the Bound Conscience. 128 Article 10 of the Formula of Concord (1577), which deals with church rites, defines the dispute: “The chief question, however, has been, whether, in time of persecution and in case of

papal traditions and stipulated that things that are truly adiaphora must be consistent with

God’s will and must be assented to freely.129 Flacius also used the term pseudadiaphora to distinguish between the adoption of practices that glorify God and edify the church and the admittance into the church of unhealthy influences under the ideal of brokering peace, as in the case of ceremonies that he considered to be “the principal sinews of popery.”130

Melanchthon’s sharply contrasting motto was: “In order to retain the essentials, we are less strict about the nonessentials.”131 This translates into a comprehensive view of the church and its practices, which Burroughs quoted approvingly: “Seeing we agree in the principal Articles of Faith, let us embrace one another with mutual love; the dissimilitude and variety of rights and ceremonies, and of ecclesiastical government ought not to disjoin our minds.” [Irenicum, 25].

Their dispute was taken up and resolved in Flacius’ favour in article 10 of the Formula of

Concord (1577), which deals with church rites.132 The fact that the concept is enshrined in such an important document in Lutheran church history makes Christians in that tradition well-versed in the practical and theological usefulness of the term compared with Christians in most other church traditions. Verkamp has observed that Flacius’ treatise, Liber De Veris et Falsis Adiaphoris, which presented his arguments, also became

confession, even if the enemies of the Gospel have not reached an agreement with us in doctrine, some abrogated ceremonies, which in themselves are matters of indifference and are neither commanded nor forbidden by God, may nevertheless, upon the pressure and demand of the adversaries, be reestablished without violence to conscience, and we may thus [rightly] have conformity with them in such ceremonies and adiaphora. To this the one side has said Yea, the other, Nay.” http://bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php, accessed April 1, 2012. 129 Verkamp, “Limits,” 67. 130 Cited by Verkamp, “Limits,” 68. 131 From Corpus reformatorum 7, 252, cited by Verkamp, “Limits,” 66. 132 The Book of Concord. http://bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php, accessed April 1, 2012.

popular with Elizabethan Puritans, who were inclined towards his views on the limits of adiaphoristic freedom.133

B. Richard Hooker’s Understanding

Anglicans, too, have some familiarity with the concept owing to its distinctly English importance in church struggles in the sixteenth century134 and the prominence given to the idea by Richard Hooker (1554–1600) in his landmark Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity

(eight books published 1593–1662). Hooker has classically been cast as the theologian- statesman of the Elizabethan Church, whose influence established the Church of England in its position as a via media, or middle way, between Catholicism and various forms of

Protestantism.135 More recently, revisionist interpretations of his work have aligned him more closely with the magisterial thought of the reformed church and have questioned the appropriateness of identifying him as the architect of the Anglican via media.136 In either case, Hooker regarded church and state as “two inseparable aspects of the one commonwealth.”137 He applied the notion of “things indifferent” to this relationship between the church and the state to legitimate civil authority138 over church matters that went beyond issues of salvation. Hooker also applied the concept of adiaphora to matters of worship to gain acceptance for ceremonial practices that were not sanctioned in the

133 Verkamp, 75-76. 134 The nuanced use of the concept in the English reformation is treated in detail by Verkamp. 135 Peter Hinchcliff, “Church-State Relations,” in The Study of Anglicanism, Stephen Sykes and John Booty, eds. (London; Minneapolis, MI: SPCK/Fortress Press, 1988), 354ff. 136 Brydon Michael, The Evolving Reputation of Richard Hooker: An Examination of Responses, 1600–1714 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006). 137 Hinchcliff, 355. 138 At this point in time that meant the monarch acting in parliament with the consent of the convocation of clergy.

New Testament, but were, he argued, in keeping with good order and reverence. While acknowledging that tradition had been and was abused, he promoted a proper and prudent respect for “traditions and ordinances made in the prime of Christian religion, established with that authority which Christ hath left to his Church for matters indifferent, and in that consideration requisite to be observed till like authority see just and reasonable cause to alter them.”139 On the controverted issue of ministers wearing a surplice to conduct the service, which harked back to Old Testament cultic worship, smacked of popery, and roused the opposition of English Puritans, Hooker responded: “…as we think not our selves the holier because we use it, so neither should they with whom no such thing is in use think us therefore unholy, because we submit ourselves unto that, which in a matter so indifferent the wisdom of authority and law have thought comely.”140 From the contrary Puritan view, making matters of adiaphora, such as wearing vestments, into obligations for worship imposed a new bondage on the conscience of Christians who had been freed from the ceremonial law of the Old Covenant.141

C. William Ames on Conscience and Adiaphora

One of the influential theologians of the seventeenth century was William Ames. He shaped Congregational practice and thought in Holland, where he was a pastor and university professor, and produced an influential body of work that integrated doctrine

139 Hooker, Laws 5, 302. 140 Hooker, Laws 5, 123. 141 Horton Davies, Worship and Theology in England, Book 1, vols. 1 and 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1996), 2: 211-12.

and practice in a methodical pattern.142 In his classic presentation of Puritan moral theology and doctrine, Conscience with the Power and Cases Thereof, Ames treated the different functions of conscience in cases of “necessary things” and in cases of “things of middle and indifferent nature.”143 In Book I, where he introduced this distinction, he offered no definition of things “necessary” and “indifferent” and so it would appear that he took this distinction as given and presumed his readers would also. In Book III, Ames elaborated on “things indifferent,” offering a nuanced and contextual account of when things, which by their nature are indifferent, become good or evil in the doing of them.144

He confined his discussion to “actions” and “dispositions to actions” and ruled out the possibility that “substances” could be good or evil in themselves. He listed four defining aspects of an “adiaphorum”: 1) “that which hath such a respect to two extremes, that it is inclined no more to the one, than the other, and in the same sense is called an indifferent thing, or a thing of a middle nature”; 2) or is “in the middle between moral good and evil”; 3) this may be a “middle of participation, which doth so far agree with both extremes”; and 4) actions that “are neither commanded nor forbidden, and that be in their own nature neither points of obedience, or disobedience…” His general principle for regulating and interpreting such acts was: “Nothing ought to be commanded, but that which is good, nor to be forbidden, but what is evil; that which is indifferent cannot simply, absolutely, and for ever be either enjoined or forbidden; but commanded, as it draws near to good, forbidden as it approacheth to evil.” Ames’ particular concern in this

142 Keith L. Sprunger, The Learned Doctor William Ames: Dutch Backgrounds of English and American Puritanism (Chicago: University of Illinois, Press, 1972), 258-9. His key works were published in England and promoted by the House of Commons in 1643. 143 Conscience with the Power and Cases Thereof (Leiden and London: W. Christiaens, E. Griffin, J. Dawson, 1639); see also the reprint The English Experience 708 (Amsterdam: Theatrum Orbis Terrarrum; Norwood, NJ: Walter J. Johnson, 1975), Book I: section III, pages 7-9. 144 Ames, Conscience, III: section XVIII, 88-91.

work was to establish the role of conscience in guiding behaviour. He understood conscience to be a “practical judgement” belonging “to the Understanding, not to the

Will.” As “judgement, it is distinguished from the bare apprehension of truth.”145 In

Ames’ schema, the conscience serves to “bind” a person to God’s revealed law in scripture and to “enforce to practice” in the case of “necessary” things. In the case of things “indifferent,” conscience serves as the seat of discernment to direct actions.

In Indifferent things the actions and duties of conscience are likewise two. 1. To discern. 2. To direct. To discern is to show and declare the differences of things – what is necessary, what is free, what is lawful, and what is unlawful. To Direct is with regard had to circumstances, to order lawful actions unto a good end. The ends which are always to be aimed at, even in indifferent things also, are the Glory of God, the Edifying of our Neighbour, and the Help of our necessary actions. The power of this direction is so great, that it makes an action to be good, which in its own nature is but indifferent; as on the other side, not only an evil direction, but the want of a good direction, makes the same action to be bad.

Ames’ treatment of indifferent things, which may incline towards good or evil, is in keeping with the Stoic distinction between “preferred” and “rejected” adiaphora, which was noted earlier by Verkamp. It is also in keeping with scholastic treatments of virtue and vice in ethics. In the passage above, Ames was not so much carving out a place for

Christian liberty within the sphere of adiaphora as he was considering the ethics of actions in and of themselves, in the manner of Aristotle and Aquinas. He asked, in short: what makes an indifferent thing good or evil?

145 Ames, Conscience, Book I: section I, 1-2.

3. Summary

This section has reviewed the way the concept of adiaphora has been understood in the early Protestant tradition. It has highlighted the contribution made by Ames, who drew out the moral significance of indifferentia when it used used to identify “actions” and

“dispositions to actions” that can incline towards good or evil, depending on the intention of the actor. This understanding of the term was in keeping with Stoic philosophy and differed from the custom of using adiaphora to designate practices that are open to

Christian liberty or discretion.146 Ames also understood the conscience to be the seat of discernment in precisely those matters that were neither inherently good nor evil, but were adiaphora inclined towards one or the other. In “things indifferent,” conscience serves as the seat of discernment to direct actions. Ames’ treatment of indifferent things, which may incline towards good or evil, is in keeping with the Stoic distinction between

“preferred” and “rejected” adiaphora, which was noted earlier by Verkamp. It is also has some affinity with Flacius’ distinction between adiaphora and pseudadiaphora. Liberty and discretion should be permitted in matters truly adiaphora, according to Flacius, but such practices must still meet the criteria of glorifying God and edifying the church.

146 On questions of freedom and limits in relation to adiaphora, see Verkamp, “Limits,” 52.

Chapter 3: IRENICUM

1. Literary Genre

A. Introduction

Burroughs’ Irenicum can be placed in two intersecting literary streams. One is the distinct and relatively narrow stream of “Irenicums,” or peace proposals. The previous chapter explained their European origin. Section B will delineate the English and Scottish tradition. Section C will briefly present three examples. The other literary stream, incorporating practical divinity and moral theology, is much wider. Section D will make a brief introduction to it and will identify the “Ramist” influence on practical divinity that is evident and possibly significant in Burroughs’ Irenicum.

B. “Irenicums” in England in the 1600s

The word “Irenicum” was used in Latin theological treatises from at least the early part of the seventeenth century. It is a Latin play on irenikon, which is the transliteration of the

Greek neuter eἰρηνικόν, from eἰρηνικός (“promoting peace”). It designates a proposal designed to promote peace, especially peace within the church.147 The Oxford Universal

Dictionary on Historical Principles fixes 1618 as the first published use, without

147 “Irenicom/Irenicum,” The Oxford Universal Dictionary on Historical Principles (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933, 1936, 1944).

providing an example. In 1614, however, it appeared in the title of Pareus’ Latin work,

Irenicum sive de unione et Synodo Evangelicorum Concilianda liber votivus paci ecclesiae & desideriis pacificorum dicatus.148 In 1629, John Forbes published an

Irenicum, also in Latin, in response to the contentious Articles of Perth approved by a church assembly in Scotland in 1618 and ratified in a meeting of Parliament in Scotland in 1621. The five articles required “the observation of certain holy days, episcopal confirmation of the laity, kneeling in the act of receiving the Eucharist, and permitting the celebration of both communion and baptism in private.”149 Forbes was the son of Bishop

Patrick Forbes in Scotland and, according to Forbes’ English translator, Edward Gordon

Selwyn, he wrote his Irenicum to assuage the upset caused by the imposition of the rules.150 A significant part of his book is devoted to explaining the ritual of the Eucharist within a theology of worship to make clear, for example, that kneeling for communion was done in humble adoration of God and not to adore the “host” (i.e., the bread) as critics claimed.151 Of note, on page 86 of the Selwyn edition, Forbes refers to Pareus’ commentary on the Lord’s Supper, indicating he knew at least one of Pareus’ works (it is not clear which). Given the title of Forbes’ book, it is possible, if not likely, that he had read Pareus’ Irenicum. Burroughs also cited a Latin commentary by Pareus in his exposition of Hosea. An example is Hosea 6:5, where he twice referred to Pareus’

148 David Pareus, Irenicum sive de unione et Synodo Evangelicorum Concilianda liber votivus paci ecclesiae & desideriis pacificorum dicatus (Rosaeus, 1614), Post-Reformation Digital Library http://www.prdl.org/index.php 149 John Forbes, Irenicum amatoribus veritatis et pacis in Ecclesia Scoticana. Prece & studio Ioannis Forbesii, ss. Theologiae Doctoris, & ejusdem professoris in Academia Aberdoniensi, Aberdoniae: Excudebat Eduardus Rabanus. Cum privilegio (Aberdeen, 1629). On the Articles of Perth, see John D. Ford, “The Lawful Bonds of Scottish Society: The Five Articles of Perth, The Negative Confession and the National Covenant,” The Historical Journal 37, no. 1 (Mar 1994): 45ff. 150 Edward Gordon Selwyn, The First Book of the Irenicum of John Forbes of Corse: A Contribution to the Theology of Re-union (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1823), 25. 151 See also Selwyn’s summary on page 15 of his introduction.

interpretation of the meaning and application of “slain” and cited the Latin in the margin.152

Early English Books Online (EEBO), which is a digital database of facsimiles of original printed works from 1473 to 1700, lists Burroughs’ Irenicum as the earliest English- language work to take this title, in 1645. Other irenic works published after the death of

Burroughs have not been treated in this study, but are briefly noted here. EEBO lists six principal works (two of which are in Latin) published from 1653 to 1681, along with several replies, rebuttals and defences, and a poem. The principal works are by John

Dury, 1654; John Rogers (1627–1665?), 1653; Daniel Zwicker (1612–1678), 1658;

Matthew Newcomen (1610? –1669), 1659; Edward Stillingfleet (1635–1699), 1662; and

Samuel Mather (1626–1671), 1680.153

C. Contemporary Irenic Works

The various strains of toleration in this period have been well covered by Jordan.154 There were moderates among the Episcopalians, Catholics and various Puritan groupings, and even among some separatists. They held various theories of toleration, but a common theological motivation to distinguish between the essential ingredients of faith and to otherwise allow for a variety of opinion and practice. This section will offer a brief commentary on just three “contemporary” irenic works: two by bishops in the Church of

152 See the 2006 Sherman edition, op.cit., 325. 153 Also consulted was the English Short Title Catalogue, revised and edited by Timothy J. Crist, with the assistance of Janice M. Hansel, et. al. (New York: Modern Language Association of America, 1982). 154 Jordan.

England (one of whom Burroughs’ cited for his irenic attitude) and another by an early

English Baptist whose plea for tolerance was republished in the 1640s to bring his argument to a new audience.

1) Joseph Hall: Christian Moderation

In 1643 Bishop Joseph Hall published a framework for peaceful co-existence that shares much in common with Burroughs’ approach. Dan Steere, a Presbyterian minister, described Hall’s position in Christian Moderation as “an attempt to forge a compromise based not upon unanimity of opinion but upon the relegation of differences to the category of adiaphora.”155 Steere wrote: “Hall sincerely believed in the unity of all

Christians everywhere. This unity would never be unanimity but would inevitably be a unity that was maintained in spite of much disagreement and diversity. The key to unity under such circumstances was to recognize which truths were essential and which were adiaphora.” In Of Moderation in Matter of Judgement, Hall distinguished between “error in doctrine” and “distemper in affection” and focussed on the latter, “to labour the reducing of men’s hearts to a wise and Christian moderation, concerning differences in judgement.”156 Rather than allowing a lapse into “lukewarmness,” Hall advocated for

155 Joseph Hall, “Christian Moderation: In Two Books.” Book II: Of Moderation in Matter of Judgement,” in The Works of Joseph Hall, D.D., successively Bishop of Exeter and Norwich: With Some Account of His Life and Sufferings, written by Himself, vol. 6 of 12. Revised edition (Oxford: D.A. Talboys, 1837); Dan Steere, “For the Peace of Both, for the Humour of Neither”: Bishop Joseph Hall Defends the Via Media in an Age of Extremes, 1601-1656,” The Sixteenth Century Journal 27, no. 3 (Autumn 1996): 761. 156 Hall, 420ff.

“zeal” moderated by “discretion” and “charity” and presented “rules for moderation in judgement.”157

“The rule, which the blessed Apostle gave for our settlement in some cases, is wont, by a common misconstruction, to be so expressed, as if it gave way to a loose indifferency. The Vulgate reads it, Let every one abound in his own sense; as leaving each man to his own liberty, in those things of middle nature: whereas his words, in their Original, run contrary; Let every one be fully persuaded in his own mind;158 requiring a plerophory of assurance, and not allowing an unsettled hesitation in what we do. And if thus, in matters of the least importance, how much more in the great affairs of religion! Here it holds well, which is the charge of the Apostle, It is good to be zealously affected, in a good thing, always; Gal. iv. 18.159

The passage above conveys the nuances in Hall’s thinking on this matter. Note especially his distinction between “indifferency,” which might be translated into modern idiom by the word “relativism,” and how he proceeds from the minor to the major, by reasoning from “middle” matters to those of the greatest importance, by which he means the

“fundamental” points of salvation. In this respect, Hall is very close to another Caroline divine, Bishop John Davenant, whose arguments Burroughs invoked in support of his irenic stance on church matters.

2) John Davenant: Exhortation to Brotherly Communion

In Chapter 6 of his Exhortation to Brotherly Communion, John Davenant (1572–1641), who was Bishop of Salisbury, provided a working definition of the distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental articles of faith, according to their “notes and

157 Hall, Moderation, 421-22. 158 Hall, Moderation, 420. In a footnote Hall cites the Greek text of Rom 14:5. 159 Hall, Moderation, 420. From the Kings James/Authorized Version.

marks.”160 “Fundamental” points were those without the knowledge of which “neither salvation of Christians, nor the worship of God can consist (6:56).” The first mark of things not to be considered fundamental was that they were not “in the time of the

Apostles … declared to all.” Here Davenant affirmed the missionary command that stands behind the proclamation of the gospel. Quoting Rom 1:16, he reasoned that since preaching the gospel is “the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth,” then whatever was not preached, believed and upheld by the universal church must not be imposed on Christians as a fundamental article of belief. Stated elsewhere, “the first sign” that a doctrine is “not fundamental [is] that it hath not been delivered by the Apostles to all, publicly, generally and plainly.” A fundamental point must also have received the assent of the post-Apostolic church. Davenant’s third sign was that a fundamental point cannot be something that can be comprehended only through speculation, logic and metaphysics. Fourthly, they must be few in number and “naked and plain” in their expression.

… it becomes all pious and prudent Christians to discern and make a difference betwixt those first, and few things to be believed, immediately revealed by Christ, and his Apostles, and those numberless deductions of Divines, which they, according to their several minds and opinions, seek to thrust, and crowd into the same room with fundamentals.

The fifth caveat was that new words for explaining an established doctrine must not exceed the doctrine as expressed in scripture, although fresh expressions of a doctrine might expound the consequential meaning of a doctrine or elaborate on its truth.

160 John Davenant, An exhortation to the restoring of brotherly communion betwixt the Protestant churches founded in this, that they do not differ in any fundamentall article of the Catholique faith (London: Printed by R.B. for Richard Badger and John Williams, 1641).

3) Leonard Busher: Religion’s Peace

Leonard Busher, an English General Baptist, had addressed a tract on religious peace to

James I and Parliament in 1614. It was published in Amsterdam and reprinted in London in 1646, where there was added a preface addressed to Presbyterians. Of note, the original scripture references on the title page were to Isaiah 60:1, 3, 10, 12,16; Proverbs

20:28; and Ecclesiastes 10:22. In the London edition, these were replaced with Romans

14:5 and 15:10. These scriptural references were no doubt intended to diminish differences in judgement among fellow believers.161 Also, the new sub-title drew attention to “a design for a peaceable reconciling of those that differ in opinion” contained within.162 Busher had argued against the persecution of citizens by kings, bishops and ministers for “difference and judgement in matters of religion.” Clearly, the ideas of this early figure in the General Baptist community had currency for a later generation grappling with related concerns regarding religious liberty and mutual tolerance among Christians.

161 Rom 14: 5: “Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds.” Rom. 14:10: “Why do you pass judgment on your brother or sister? Or you, why do you despise your brother or sister? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.” NRSV. 162 Leonard Busher, Religions peace or A reconciliation, between princes & peoples, & nations (by Leonard Busher: of the county of Gloucester, of the towne of Wotton, and a citticen, of the famous and most honorable citty London, and of the second right worshipfull Company) supplicated (vnto the hygh and mighty King of great Brittayne: etc: and to the princely and right Honorable Parliament) with all loyalty, humility and carefull fidelity (Amsterdam, 1614; London: Printed for John Sweeting, 1646.) The observations on the two editions of Busher’s work are my own. For a treatment of his life and works, see the entry by William H. Brackney, “Mark Leonard Busher” in Theological Literature of the Early English Baptists 1609-1660: Bibliotheca Dissidentium-Repertoire des nonconformists religious des seizieme et dix- setiene siecles, Tome 30 (Baden-Baden: Valentin Koerner Editions, 2014), 27-29.

D. English Practical Divinity

1) Overview

In the seventeenth century, England saw a flourishing of literature to nurture Christian piety and cultivate the spiritual life. Anglican scholar and former Archbishop of Dublin,

Henry R. McAdoo (1916–1998), provided a foundational study in The Structure of

Caroline Moral Theology in 1949.163 Classical figures in this tradition included such conformists and non-conformists as Lancelot Andrews (1555–1626) William Ames,

Richard Baxter (1615–1691), William Chillingworth (1602–1644), John Davenant, John

Donne (1572–1631), Joseph Hall, Henry Hammond (1605–1660), the Welsh George

Herbert (1593–1633), Richard Hooker, William Laud (1573–1645), Robert Sanderson

(1587–1663), and Jeremy Taylor (1613–1667). Most of these were bishops or priests in the Church of England.

C. FitzSimons Allison made a critical assessment of the underlying theological convictions of many of these churchmen in his study, The Rise of Moralism: The

Proclamation of the Gospel from Hooker to Baxter, in 1966.164 Allison aimed to show a shift in doctrine away from the emphasis on grace evident in the works of earlier writers, notably Andrewes, Hooker, Davenant and Donne, to a conditional view of justification predicated on free will, repentance and “holy living.” He dated the transition to 1640 and

163 Henry R. McAdoo, The Structure of Caroline Moral Theology (London, New York: Longmans, Green, 1949). 164 C. FitzSimons Allison, The Rise of Moralism: The Proclamation of the Gospel from Hooker to Baxter (London: SPCK, 1966).

found evidence of this new emphasis in the works of Baxter, Hammond, Taylor and others, which he attributed to their concern about loose living and the antinomianism that accompanied a particular interpretation of “free justification.”165 Allison thought this newer view compromised a gospel grounded in grace, which makes people good on account of what Jesus did, not what they do, and opened the door to “moralism” by introducing “conditions” for justification. Space here does not permit an assessment of his argument, but his work is critical to any reading of moral theology and practical divinity in this period, because it draws attention to the profound relationship between doctrines of soteriology and their moral significance.

2) The Ramist Influence on Practical Divinity

Burroughs’ Irenicum forms part of this overall body of work on practical divinity. It also exhibits traits of an English development in theological method informed by the works of a sixteenth-century French philosopher, Petrus Ramus (1515–1572). His works were part of the curriculum at certain colleges in Cambridge and consequently informed the very popular works of William Perkins (1558–1602) and Ames.166 Ames was a master at coordinating doctrine and practice and he did so by incorporating modes of philosophical reasoning. He received his advanced education at Christ’s College, which Sprunger labelled the “stronghold” of “militant” Puritans and where Ramus’ teaching was

165 Allison, 194ff; x-xi. 166 For a study of the relevant works by Ramus and Ames, see Marco Sgarbi, The Aristotelian Tradition and the Rise of British Empiricism: Logic and Epistemology in the British Isles (1570-1689), Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 32 (Dordrecht: Springer, 2013), 24-27. For a study on Ames, see Keith L. Sprunger, “Ames, Ramus, and the Method of Puritan Theology,” Harvard Theological Review 59, no. 2 (April 1966): 133-51.

promulgated.167 A leading architect of Puritan thought, Perkins was leaving Christ’s just as Ames was arriving, but continued to deliver influential sermons from a pulpit in

Cambridge.168 A noticeable and practical component of the Ramist method was the continuous division of categories of doctrine into parts, each of which was further divided to show its components and its uses. This led to an analytic kind of theology epitomized by “Ramist charts,” constructed by theologians in the way a genealogist creates a family

“tree.” This method of dissection and coupling of doctrine with “uses” is noticeable in

Burroughs’ expository works, such as his series of published lectures on the Matthean

Beatitudes169 and his commentary on Hosea. In his exposition of Hosea, it might equally be argued that in some respects Burroughs has followed the pattern of Aquinas, by posing questions, “satisfying” objections and offering observations.170 Erland Sellberg described another characteristic of the Ramist approach in an encyclopedia entry:

According to Ramus, there are always three essential aspects of every art which need to be considered: nature, principles and practice (exercitatio). It was the third element, practice, which was essential, for it was through practice that one demonstrated that the art and its principles were correct.171

This distinction between “nature, principles and practice” is evident in the logic and structure of Irenicum, although a habit of itemizing and dissecting theological points is apparent in almost all the contemporary works surveyed for this study. In summary, the

167 Sprunger, 14. 168 Sprunger, 11. 169 The Saints’ Happiness: Together with the Several Steps Leading Thereunto. Delivered in Divers Lectures on the Beatitudes; Being Part of Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, Contained in the Fifth of Matthew, intro. by John H. Gerstner (Ligonier, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1988, 1992); reprinted from the 1867 edition of James Nichols; originally published in London in 1659 or 1660. 170 This approach is pervasive; see, for example, Hosea 6:6 on page 328 of the Sherman edition. 171 Erland Sellberg,“Petrus Ramus,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/ramus/, accessed November 9, 2013.

Ramist method furthered the Puritan aim of holding together “head and heart” and

“doctrine and practical divinity”172 and made a contribution to systematic theology by orchestrating theology and ethics.173

2. The Text of Irenicum

The earliest digital facsimile of Burroughs’ Irenicum, among the collection published in

Early English Books Online, carries the date of 1645 in manuscript Arabic numerals and

1646 in typeset Roman numerals. Owing to what appears to be this hand-made correction to the title page of one the earliest extant editions, the date for Irenicum is variously given as 1645 or 1646. In the 1653 edition, on page 128, Burroughs mentioned a “public

Thanksgiving” that took place “yesterday” to “solemnize” “the great mercy of God towards us.” The marginal note, in type, dates this lecture as “the week after the victory at Naseby” – a victory for the Parliamentary army, that is – and the date “July 14 1645” is given in manuscript. This decisive battle in the first civil war occurred on June 14, 1645.

The marginal note most likely refers to the public thanksgiving. Burroughs also made mention of this edition in a series of lectures on Hosea, which he delivered in 1646. For these reasons, 1645 seems to be the year of publication. For ease of reading, I have conducted my research using a facsimile of the 1653 edition, because it had the clearer

172 Keith L. Sprunger, “Ames, Ramus, and the Method of Puritan Theology,” Harvard Theological Review 59, no. 2 (April 1966): 133. 173 This point is well made in various studies by Donald McKim, previously a theology professor at Memphis Theological Seminary and at the University of Dubuque Theological Seminary. See his Ramism in William Perkins’ Theology, American University Studies, Series VII: Theology and Religion, 15 (New York, Bern, Frankfurt am Main, and Paris: Peter Lang, 1987); “William Perkins’ Use of Ramism as an Exegetical Tool,” in A Commentary on Hebrews 11 (1609 Edition), ed. John H. Augustine (New York: Pilgrim Press, 1991); and “The Functions of Ramism in William Perkins’ Theology,” The Sixteenth Century Journal 16, no. 4 (Winter 1985): 503-517.

text and was available in a document-wide searchable format. The format of the two editions differs only slightly. The 1653 edition comprises 304 pages of densely printed text with extensive marginal notes in English, Greek and Latin manuscript. It must also be pointed out that Burroughs’ scripture references do not always conform to the numerical order in modern texts of the bible and these have been adjusted as necessary.174

Burroughs noted in his preface to the first edition that he had annotated his lectures for print and that his purpose in publishing the collection was to issue a public record of what he had said from the pulpit. It is apparent from his preface that Burroughs expected his work to be contested. Although he stated that he was offering his work as an “Irenicum,” not a “Polemicum,” his choice to publish was clearly strategic, to close off opportunities for misunderstanding.175 In the preface also, Burroughs described his work as a

“treatise.” Accordingly, it will be treated here as a treatise with chapters, rather than as a collection of published sermons.

3. Structure

Irenicum is divided into 35 chapters. The preface states the subject as being “divisions” and “differences” and the “composing of them.” Burroughs informed his readers: “You have here what I delivered: some things are added, especially quotations of authors and histories.” [Irenicum, A3]. Using Hosea 10:2 as his scriptural key, Burroughs “opened” his “peace proposal” in the context of worship, by identifying divisions with God as the

174 I have not discovered why this is the case. 175 See n. 3 above.

cause of divisions in the church. In Chapter 1, Burroughs established “Heart-division” from God and “from one another” as his guiding principle. All worship and service must be singly devoted to God. Accordingly, any attempt “to divide with God” (in the sense of apportioning elsewhere that which belongs to God, especially the heart) is evil.

[Irenicum, 2] Burroughs made a cross-reference to this opening section of Irenicum in his published lectures on Hosea, in which he remarked: “My brethren, I know that you would be willing enough that I should, in such a point as this, go beyond an expository way, seeing God has cast me upon it; but as this point of mine has been fully handled in a treatment of mine already printed, (to which I shall refer you) I shall pass it and proceed to the following words.”176 Chapter 2 addresses the “evil of dividing between God and anything else” and Chapter 3 addresses “Heart-divisions from one another.” Here

Burroughs arranged the catalysts of divisions under three headings:

Dividing principles. Sometimes our divisions come down from our heads to our heart. 2. Dividing distempers. Sometimes they go up from our hearts to our heads. 3. Dividing practices. These come from head and heart; they foment and increase both. We will begin with the dividing principles. Unless some care is taken of the head, it will be vain to meddle with the heart, to cry out against our heart-distempers. The chief cause of many of our divisions lies here. It is to little purpose to purge or apply any medicine to the lower parts when the disease come from distillations from the head.” [Irenicum, 13]

Chapters 4 to 14 present the 10 “Dividing Principles,” which constitute one third of the book and comprise the principal material for my study. Chapters 15 to 20 deal with

“Dividing Distempers.” Chapters 21 to 26 address “Dividing Practices.” Chapters 27 to

30 present five “theses” on division: the “evil of divisions, [which] hinder much good;” the “sinfulness of our divisions;” the “woeful miseries that our divisions bring upon us;”

176 On page 423, the 2006 Sherman edition makes an annotated reference to “Irenicum: Heart- divisions opened, & c.” See also note 95 above.

“cautions about our divisions;” and the “cure of divisions.” Chapter 31 introduces the second part of the book and sets out the “Joining Principles.” Chapter 32 deals with

“Joining Considerations”; Chapter 33 with “Joining Graces”; and Chapter 34 with

“Joining Practices.” The book concludes with an “exhortation to peaceable and brotherly union” in Chapter 35.

There is much to be learned from a study of the second part of the book, which deals with the “healing” of division and contains rich pastoral advice. These practices are not dealt with in this study, however, but are listed in Appendix B.177 They comprise a reasonably short section at the end of the book. Their meaning is easily comprehended and requires little interpretation, whereas the dividing principles must be interpreted in the historical context being addressed by Burroughs. Some of his principles appear less time-bound and promise more fruitful lines for theological inquiry than others. In addition to the quote above, Burroughs provided a second rationale for paying primary attention to the principles, causes and practices of division, which together constitute the bulk of the text.

In his introduction to the second part of the book he noted: “I shall not need to be long in these: For take away Dividing Principles, Dividing Distempers, Dividing Practices, and be thoroughly convinced of the evil of divisions, and one would think our hearts should of themselves run into one another.” [Irenicum, 254] Accordingly, my study of

Burroughs’ Irenicum is concerned with the “dividing” principles and the contribution

177 Appendix B presents an outline of Chapters 13 to 34 to indicate the key idea contained under each sub-heading in these latter categories. These are the “dividing distempers,” “dividing practices,” the five “theses;” the “cures;” “joining principles”; “joining considerations;” “joining graces;” and “joining practices.”

they might make to the process of reasoning about disputed matters. The “dividing principles” might also be called conciliating or moderating principles.

4. Dividing Principles

A. FIRST: “There can be no agreement without uniformity.”

The first principle addressed the problem of religious coercion in matters of worship.

According to Burroughs, this comprised two categories of practice: the “essentials” and the “circumstantials.” [Irenicum, 14] “In the substantials of worship, Unity is necessary; there all are bound to go by the same rule, and to do to the uttermost they are able, the same thing.” The necessity of baptism and the celebration of the Lord’s Supper would fit within this category. The category of “circumstantials” was divided into two parts. First, the things instituted by God for his worship, notably the Sabbath, which therefore demand uniformity as much as the “substantials”; and secondly, matters considered

“natural or civil helps” to worship. These refer to matters of order and administration, such as the time of a Sunday service, which requires conformity within a group, but not necessarily across groups; such things can be decided and governed by “human prudence.” So long as practices are orderly, modest and edifying, there must be choice, rather than uniformity under duress, in matters such as posture and dress when Christians gather for worship. If one party sought to impose a requirement on another party, which saw no scriptural warrant for such action, or thought it contrary to scripture, or to

constitute sin in their eyes, then forcing compliance would necessarily result in either division or in forcing one party to act contrary to their conscience.

Burroughs’ understanding of worship is further explained in his commentaries on Hosea and his lectures on worship, both of which shed light on the question of diversity within the church and the freedom being sought by Congregationalists to practice their worship according to their conscience and interpretation of scripture.178 As can be seen from his lectures on worship, Burroughs opposed ceremonial practices, such as kneeling for communion, for which he could find no clear scriptural warrant. It is important to understand that Burroughs regarded the Lord’s Supper as a sacrament prescribed in scripture. As an “instituted” form of worship, it was founded “upon a positive Law, upon the will of God.” This critical point informed his argument that Christians ought to be allowed religious freedom to celebrate the Lord’s Supper in the manner they believed to be right, without coercion.

… there are some duties of worship which are natural, that we may know by the light of nature they are due to God: but the Sacrament is a duty of worship that is only by institution; and if God had not revealed it, we had not been bound to it; therefore in these duties of institution, God stands very punctual upon them; we must be very exact, neither to err on the right hand nor the left; to make any alteration in the points of instiution.179

Therefore, as he observed in his discussion of the first dividing principle, “in matters of divine worship, we must look to it, that we walk exactly in the same steps … but in

178 See section 8 below, “Theological Motivation,” for a discussion of Burroughs’ commentary on Hosea, in which he distinguishes between “natural” and “instituted” worship. See also Burroughs, Gospel Worship, Sermon 13, 261-64. 179 Gospel Worship, 261.

circumstances of an inferior nature, there may be difference without division.” [Irenicum,

17]. Here he cited the irenic attitude of Melanchthon.

Melanchthon in an Epistle to some Brethren of differing minds … persuades to unity thus: Seeing (saith he) we agree in the principle articles of Faith, let us embrace one another with mutual love, the dissimilitude and varieties of Rites and Ceremonies, … and of Ecclesiastical Government, ought not disjoin our minds. [Irenicum, 18]

B. SECOND AND THIRD: “All religions are to be tolerated” and “That

nothing which is conceived to be evil is to be suffered.”

The second and third dividing principles addressed religious tolerance. On the one hand,

Burroughs rejected the notion that all religions and religious expression should be tolerated. (The second dividing principle.) He considered this position to be inflammatory, because it aroused a reactionary response against dissent and diversity.

The moderate response lay in balancing tolerance and intolerance – being neither “rigid” nor “loose.” [Irenicum, 48] He also rejected the “other extreme”180 – “That nothing which is conceived to be evil is to be suffered.” (The third dividing principle.)

In chapter 6, in the context of the second dividing principle, he made a detailed excursus on the subject of conscientious objections, in which he set out a sophisticated manner of testing claims of conscience as a defence against religious coercion. The second dividing principle reflected Burroughs’ belief that to go against one’s conviction would be to sin.

He maintained that Christians were bound by the light of Christ “in his word” and should not be made to “venture in the dark” by stepping beyond the bounds of scripturally

180 Lit., “extream” [48].

informed convictions. [Irenicum, 47] “We sail up to our Brethren as far as we can see the

Line of Truth, and beyond it we dare not venture in the least… therefore, the way to peace, is not the necessity of coming up one to another, because the thing is little, but the loving, and peaceable, and brotherly carriage of one towards another, because the difference is but small.” [Irenicum, 47]. Burroughs maintained that in cases of conscientious dissent within the church, certain differences in practice should be allowed to stand. While there should be no attempt to bridge the differences by coercion, neither should such differences cause a breach in Christian fellowship. In essence, this was

Burroughs’ argument for why a national church should either accommodate or tolerate the “Congregational Way.”

C. FOURTH: “Division is the best way to maintain Dominion.”

Burroughs identified this as the negative political principle of divide et regna (“divide and rule). In a brief political commentary under this heading, Burroughs suggested it was often in the interest of rulers to allow differences to fester rather than to intervene to

“settle” matters for the sake of peace.

D. FIFTH: “That every man is bound to profess and practice always what he

apprehends to be truth.”

Burroughs’ explication of this negative principle attests to his pastoral insight and is quite different in tone to his treatment of the preceding principles, which stand more in the

tradition of discourse about religious tolerance. He opened this section by observing the particular force of this principle, “because it comes under a show of exact godliness: I do not mean an hypocritical show, but an appearance to men’s consciences.” Recast in a modern colloquial fashion, this might be stated as: People are motivated by a concern to be seen to hold the right opinion or to be acting in the right way. Burroughs explained the application of this principle by describing when it is “necessary” to profess the truth and when it is appropriate to refrain from the profession or practice of a truth. He also offered “rules of Direction to show in what manner a man should make profession of what he conceives to be truth, though it be different from his Brethren.” [Irenicum, 75-6]

Five cases “bind” to a profession and practice of the truth [Irenicum, 77ff]: 1) “when the truths are necessary to salvation, and my forbearance in them may endanger the salvation of any”; 2) when not professing the truth “shall be interpreted to be a denial”; 3) “when others shall be scandalised, so as to be weakened in their faith by my denial”; 4) “when an account of my faith is demanded, if it be not either in scorn to deride, or in malice to ensnare, but seriously, so as the giving it may be to edification, especially in a way of giving a public testimony to the truth”; and 5) “so far as those whom God hath committed to my charge for instruction are capable, at some time or other I must manifest that truth of God to them that may be for their good according as I am able.” Burroughs also furnished rules for when it is suitable to refrain from speaking or acting upon the truth. 1)

Truth should not be cast as “a pearl before swine,” such as in the case of a trap being set.

2) Truth may be reserved until someone is ready to receive it. 3) There may be such corruption that the truth will be abused. 4) Truths should not be pressed when they are merely “doubtful disputations” that distract from weightier or more necessary things,

those being “the great things of the Kingdom of God.” 5) “Fifthly, when my profession at this time in this thing is like to hinder a more useful profession at another time in another thing. Prov. 29.11. A fool uttereth all his mind, he that is wise keeps it in till afterward. It was the wisdom of Paul when he was at Athens, not presently to break out against their

Idols; he stayed his due time, and yet all the time he kept in his uprightness in the hatred of Idolatry as much as ever.” 6) “Sixthly, when our profession will cause public disturbance” or “the offence of any of [Christ’s] little ones.” Burroughs’ elaboration of this final point is, once more, worthy of being stated in full.

When men who love the truth as well as we, shall not only be against what we conceive truth, but shall be offended, and that generally at it; if we have discharged our own consciences by declaring as we are called to it what we conceive the mind of God, we should fit down quietly, and not continue in a way of public offence and disturbance to the Saints.

A rule of thumb laid down under this fifth dividing principle was: a “thing in itself evil can never be made my duty to do, whatever circumstances it may be clothed with, whatever good I conceive may be done by it; but a thing in itself good, may by circumstances attending of it, be such, as at this time it is my duty to forbear it…”

[Irenicum, 81].

E. SIXTH: “What is in itself best must be chosen and done, not weighing

circumstances, or references.”

Here Burroughs positioned himself against the particular phenomenon of the 1640s – lay preaching – as well as against over-bearing Christians and those who overstep their vocation. The following quotation also sets him apart from the more radical strains of

Christianity that were emerging all around him and reveals his appreciation for due order and authority in the church, including ordination.

This brings much trouble to the Churches; yea it causeth much trouble in the spirits and lives of many truly godly. It causeth men to break the bonds of their Callings, of their Relations, of their public Interests, therefore certainly it must needs be a dividing Principle. Some men whose calling is only to a private employment, yet having some gifts, and having used sometimes in their Families to take a Scripture and speak something out of it; upon this they think it is a better thing to be exercised in preaching God’s word, than to sit in a shop all day, at some mean work, or selling out wares, therefore they think they are bound to give over their Callings, which they look at as too low, mean things, and be Preachers of the Word, not regarding those due ways that Christ would have men come into such an employment by.

F. SEVENTH: “It is obstinacy for a man not to be convinced by the judgement

of many, more learned and godly than himself.”

Burroughs offered many points to explain this principle. Two will suffice. On the one hand, he counselled Christians to “yield for peace sake” to “the judgments of learned and godly men,” and not oppose them, where matters of duty are not at stake. On the other, while such respect is commanded by “men of learning and godliness,” if “we should go so high, as to give up our judgment and consciences to them, we should in honouring them dishonour Christ.” [Irenicum, 90] To judge a person as “obstinate” for not yielding to those of such status and to coerce compliance could lead such a person to sin, by acting only under compulsion or another’s moral authority, but without their own conviction or faith.

G. EIGHTH: “If others be against what we conceive to be truth, we may judge

them going against their own light.”

Under this heading, Burroughs maintained that among Christians, “it is worse to make our judgments the rule of other’s men’s actions, than other men’s judgements the rule of our actions: This makes men who differ, to have exceeding hard thoughts one of another, it causeth a mighty spirit to rise in them one against another. A man cannot judge worse of another, than this, that he goes against his own light.” [Irenicum, 95] Here “light” can be read as conviction or conscience or better judgement. His concern is to avert

Christians from maligning the motivations of Christians with whom they differ.

H. NINTH: “Rules of prudence are sufficient to guide us in natural things and

civil affairs, and may as well suffice us in spiritual and Church-affairs.”

In this thesis, Burroughs addressed the tension between Christians who demand a scriptural warrant – or institution – for every action and decision of the church and those who make recourse to a civil notion of “Prudence” – implying “reason” – in place of such a warrant or institution. Burroughs regarded reason as the “lesser” of the “two lights” for guidance granted by God; with scripture being the greater. He was especially concerned about this distinction for the regulation of worship and “spiritual” things, which must have their significance and efficacy determined by God, not by human volition or invention, or by annexing human caprice to God’s provisions for worship and the spiritual life of Christians.

I. TENTH: “Every difference in Religion is a differing Religion”

Burroughs’ core conviction was that Christians are united in Christ and this provides the ground and rationale for their unity, even when they are “divided in their opinions and ways.” He asserted they all face the same “adversary” and “receive sap from the fame root.” [Irenicum, 101-2]

5. The “Knotty Business” of Knowing When to Yield

At the juncture between the third and fourth dividing principles, in Chapter 9, Burroughs sets out the core concept taken up in my study of Irenicum. Discovering this chapter, accidently, in a collection of primary texts led to me to undertake this study.181 This chapter is titled “Rules to know in what things we are to bear with our Brethren.” This was for Burroughs the “knotty business” of his entire treatise, for “[h]ere lies the difficulty” for Christians: “what must, and what must not be suffered.” [Irenicum, 53]

The first three “rules” present arguments for respecting private judgement in “things not fundamental nor destructive” and for the forbearance of compulsion in exerting people to act contrary to their convictions. In service to this argument, Burroughs quoted from

Exhortation to Brotherly Communion by John Davenant.182 In the ninth chapter, cited by

181 Published under the chapter title, “What we are to Bear With in Others,” in The Reformation of the Church: A Collection of Reformed and Puritan Documents on Church Issues, selected with introductory notes by Iain H. Murray, 323-340 (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1965). 182 See the section on Davenant above, under “Contemporary Irenic Works.”

Burroughs, Davenant stated that communion among “evangelical” churches ought not to be broken over “controversial” matters “but only for the denying or opposing

Fundamentals,” to which he added a postscript: “Here see the moderation of a Prelate.”

[Irenicum, 56] In matters not “fundamental,” argued Burroughs, “this contending about every difference of opinion, and urging our Brethren with what we conceive right, in matters of controversy, crosseth the end of Christ in his Administration of differing gifts to his Church, and humane society, and his revealing truths in a different way, some more darkly, some more clearly...” [Irenicum, 57].

Burroughs proceeded to argue for latitude and humility in non-fundamental matters to avoid the “danger of opposing truth as well as falsehood, and compelling to falsehood as well as to truth; for in matters doubtful and controversial amongst good and peaceable men, it is not easy to have any such grounded confidence, as to be out of all danger of mistake.” He argued further that the frailty of “our probabilities, guesses, and opinions, are not enough to cause the stream of another man’s conscience to stop…” To make this point, he invoked Jesus’ parable of the wheat tares, the import of which “may be understood of things, of truths and falsehoods, as well as of persons; we may be mistaken in the one as well as in the other.” [Irenicum, 58.]

Thus in respect of things good or evil, there are some things apparently evil, they are rather thistles and briars, than tares; we may freely pluck up them; but other things, though perhaps they may prove evil, yet they have some likeness to good, so as you can hardly discern whether they be good or evil. Now saith Christ, take heed what you do then, do not out of eagerness oppose all evil, to get out every tare, pluck out some wheat too; what if that you oppose with violence as evil, prove to be good? You had better let forty tares stand, than pluck up one wheat. [Irenicum, 59]

6. Rules and Parameters

Apart from Burroughs’ designation of the formal dividing and joining principles, a strategic reading of his work reveals the parameters that can be used to interpret his principles. Two of these are significant. 1) Burroughs argued that within the bounds of scripture and reason there could be a moderate plurality of expressions of worship and practice within a national church. 2) In this respect he observed the distinction between the “fundamentals” and “non-fundamentals” of Christian faith.

Articles or rules for doctrine or practice in matters of Religion to be imposed upon men, should be as few as may be; there is a very great danger in the unnecessary multiplying them: This in all ages hath caused divisions, and exceeding disturbances in the Churches of Christ. [Irenicum, 68]

Burroughs supported this point with an illustration from the policy of James I designed to secure peace in the realm. Yet as is often the case when reading his Irenicum, it would appear that some of his conciliatory views might have been intended to earn public support for his views, as much as to advance his opinion. Charles I, although engaged in a battle at the time with parliamentary forces, was still on the throne and Burroughs had good reasons to present himself as a moderate, to protect himself against the claims of some Presbyterians, notably Thomas Edwards (1599–1648), that Independents, or

Congregationalists, himself included, were schismatic radicals. Edwards had published

Antapologia, or a Full Answer to the Apologeticall Narration in 1644.183 In 1646 he published an expose of “herectics” and “sectarians” under the three-part work,

183 Antapologia, or, A full answer to the Apologeticall narration of Mr Goodwin, Mr Nye, Mr Sympson, Mr Burroughs, Mr Bridge, members of the Assembly of Divines wherein is handled many of the controversies of these times... by Thomas Edwards (London: Printed by G.M. for John Bellamie, 1644).

Gangraena. Burroughs fended off Edwards’ criticism of the “schismatic”

Congregationalists with sharp words in the preface to the Irenicum.184 The protracted and heated literary exchanges between these two men, and the nature of Edwards’ argument in Gangraena, is documented by Simpson in his biography of Burroughs.185

At the core of Irenicum is the proposal that irreconcilable differences should be allowed to stand without forming a stumbling block to fellowship. He found his theological foundation for this proposal in the “Apostolic Rule” in Philippians 3:15-16. Burroughs established the tradition of this principle by recourse to Augustine, the Italian Reformed theologian Girolamo Zanchi (1516–1590), and John Chrysostom. The translation used by

Burroughs stated: “Let therefore as many as be perfect be thus minded; and if in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you; nevertheless, whereunto we have already attained, let us walk.” 186 Burroughs in many places expressed confidence that God would perfect the faith of Christians who disagreed; but if God chose not to reveal his will in such ways, then the differences, left to stand, would provide opportunities for Christians to exercise their gifts of grace in loving fellowship. Rather than becoming stumbling blocks, such differences would allow God’s grace to work through the life of the church. For example, in chapter 30, Burroughs affirmed that God is at work even in the divisions within the church, to test and refine, to “exercise … the graces of His saints,” and to “bring forth further light,” for as “[s]parks are beaten out by

184 See n. 3 above. 185 Simpson, 242-80. 186 The translation closely matches the 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible and the Authorized/King James Version.

the flints striking together,” so “[m]any sparks of light, many truths, are beaten out by the beatings of men’s spirits one against another.”

Similarly, he found in Paul’s letter to the Romans another “Apostolic Rule” for yielding to fellow Christians for the sake of charity. Chapter 19 presents an eloquent speech on

“yielding” under the heading of the fifth dividing distemper: “rigidness.” [Irenicum, 134-

5] In this section, Burroughs anchored his peace proposal in Paul’s letter to the Romans and in the person of Jesus:

Rigid, harsh, sour, crabbed, rough-hewn spirits are unfit for union, there is no sweetness, no amiableness, no pleasingness in them, they please themselves in a rugged austereness, but are pleasing to none else in all their ways; they will abate nothing of their own, nor yield any thing to others: this is against the rule of the Apostle, Rom. 15. 1, 2, 3. We must not please our selves, but let every one please his neighbour for his good to edification; and this, according to the example of Christ, who pleased not himself.187

In several places Burroughs also established the priority of love over justice.188 Human sin and frailty require that in matters not “fundamental,” “charity must rule over justice, you must not suffer justice to rule over charity.” [Irenicum, 58]. To support this statement he cited a Latin letter from Luther to ministers in Nuremberg and at another point he observed:

If God intended that all things amongst men, either in Church or Commonwealth, should be carried with strictness of justice, he would rather have governed his Church and the World by Angels, who have right apprehensions of justice, who are themselves perfect, altogether free from those evils that are to be punished, than by men, whose apprehensions of justice are

187 15:2 in the NRSV reads: “Each of us must please our neighbour for the good purpose of building up the neighbour.” 188 As with many publications from this era, an “f” stood for an “s,” so in the 1653 edition, the digital search term was “juftice” not “justice.”

exceeding weak, unconstant [sic], partial, as often false as true, and have much of that evil in themselves that they judge in others. [Irenicum, 265].

The primacy of love over justice formed part of his argument against coercion by religious or civil authorities and was used to support his claim that: “Compulsion in such things as we are speaking of [i.e., things not fundamental] is to strain Justice so high, as to make it summa justitia, which is the degeneration of it.” [Irenicum, 265]. In the above statement, summa justitia can be read as corresponding to the summum bonum of classical philosophy and to Aquinas in particular. In both cases – of “justice” and

“goodness” – summa/summum refers to that which is the highest, or ultimate, or singular and complete. In Christian theology, so Aquinas, things of this nature can only be predicated of God. Following Augustine and Aquinas, Burroughs is here affirming that human justice and goodness are only ever weak and sinful attempts at the truth.

Judgements about “truth” and being “right” must be moderated accordingly, with due humility. In his commentary on the 13th joining principle, he stated: “If I must needs err, considering what our condition is here in this world, I will rather err by too much gentleness and mildness, than by too much rigour and severity.” Finally, a clean conscience provided the regulating factor for knowing when to yield for the sake of peace and charity. In the twelfth joining principle Burroughs stated: “Peace with all men it is good, but with God and mine own conscience it is necessary.” [Irenicum, 264]

Burroughs also argued that peace with God was the basis for peace with one another. As with the biblical example of Saul, “secret breaches between God and their own conscience” can be the “cause of the forwardness of many men and women in their families, and with their neighbours.” [Irenicum, 264-5].

7. Burroughs’ Use of “Things Indifferent”

Burroughs’ understanding of “things indifferent” is set out in chapter 22, on the third dividing practice, which is “Men not keeping within the bounds that God hath set them.”

[Irenicum, 152-161]. Burroughs used the concept of “things indifferent” to keep civil and ecclesiastical authority within “their bounds” and safeguard a place for the conscientious reading of scripture to determine what should and should not constitute right worship

[Irenicum, 158]. He also used it to protect a Christian’s “liberty,” which is “violated” when “things merely indifferent be enjoined…” [Irenicum, 159]. Burroughs allowed that some church practices could rightly be called “indifferent,” while worship should confirm as closely as possible to scriptural warrants.

Burroughs argued that the officers of the local congregation – and not a civil or higher church authority – have the authority “in the name of Christ” to “declare dogmatically” what is and is not “indifferent” and when, “by reason of some circumstances, [it] comes to be a duty…” His principle was based on his interpretation of Acts 15 (“The Council of

Jerusalem”), which offered a quintessential pattern for church decision-making in relation to “things indifferent,” as shown here, in Burroughs’ use of this scripture.

The apostles and elders sent their decrees, their dogmatical determinations about some things in themselves indifferent, but as clothed with those circumstances they call them things necessary; they determine them to be done from the reason of the things, not from their authority; those things were duties before they decreed them, and had been, had they never decreed them. Even forbearing the eating of blood was a duty in case of offence, though their decree had never been, and otherwise it was no duty, notwithstanding their decree, for afterward Paul says, that whatsoever is sold in the shambles, they might eat of it, asking no question for conscience sake, and every creature of God is good, if it be received with thanksgiving. [Irenicum, 161]

The point Burroughs endeavoured to make here is succinctly stated in the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible: “Charity is required even in things indifferent.” Other marginal notes in the Geneva Bible bear out Burroughs’ interest in this particular text as a guide for congregational interpretation, decision-making, and authority in “things indifferent.”

Regarding Acts 15:19, note “p” states: “In matters indifferent we may so far bear with the weakness of our brethren, as they may have time to be instructed.” The final marginal notes on this chapter well reflect Burroughs’ overall sensibility about discord in the church and “the good” to which it can be oriented when all things are done well for the edification of the church. 1) “God useth the faults of his servants to the profit and building of his Church, yet we have to take heed, even in the best matters that we pass not measure in our heat” and 2) “They were in great heat: but herein we have to consider the force of God’s counsel: for by this means it came to pass, that the doctrine of the Gospel was exercised in many places.”189 The theological viewpoint expressed in the Geneva

Bible suggests that Burroughs’ stands in an established tradition regarding the use of the concept of adiaphora to interpret scripture and guide the church in times of discord.

Within this tradition, Paul’s responses to conflict in the church are significant. This discussion will be taken up in the next section.

189 Regarding Acts 15: 39, notes “af” and “ag.”

8. Theological Motivation

Burroughs’ theological motivation is expressed well in chapter 35, “Exhortation to peaceable and brotherly union, the excellency of it,” in which he makes an annotated commentary on 1 Corinthians 1:10 and Philippians 2:1-3 (breaking off after the beginning of verse 3), with the Greek manuscript in the margin. The Philippians text in the Authorized Version provided pretext for Burroughs’ discussion of conflict, or

“strife.” Contemporary readers would be less likely to make this connection, because the

NRSV, for example, now reads: “Do nothing from selfish ambition” rather than

“strife.”190 For a discussion of the variant translations, see Reumann’s commentary on

Philip. 1:17 and 2:3, where he explains the modern preference for translating eritheia as self-interest rather than strife.191 The variant may be historically significant, because

“strife,” chosen by the editors of the Authorized Version, may have resonated in a particular way with readers in seventeenth-century England.

Now I beseech you brethren by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that ye be perfectly joined together, in the same mind, and in the same judgment. The word translated perfectly joined, signifies such a joining, as when a bone is out of joint, is perfectly set right again. So Philip. 2:1. If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, fulfil ye my joy, that ye be like minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind, let nothing be done through strife, etc.…” The Apostle pours forth his soul in this exhortation, it is a heart- breaking exhortation. [Irenicum, 297]

Burroughs also proposed mercy as the best medicine for anger and the bitter causes of division under his discussion of the fourth dividing “distemper” – passion. The section

190 Burroughs’ citations here conform to the Authorized/Kings James Version. 191 John Reumann, Philippians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Yale Bible Series 33B. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2008), 178, 181, 306.

contained in pages 130 to 135 constitutes a treatise on the nature of mercy and God’s desire for it among his people, as expressed in Burroughs’ reference to the prophet

Micah.

Our hearts have been broken one from another in our unhappy divisions, oh that now they could break one towards another in love and tenderness! Here would be a sacrifice more esteemed of God, than thousands of Rams, and ten thousand Rivers of Oil: Loving mercy, and walking humbly is preferred above such sacrifices, Micah 6:8.” [Irenicum, 131-2]

Burroughs’ treatise on mercy here is an accompaniment to his more textual exposition of

Hosea in lectures that he delivered in London after Irenicum was published.192 His commentary on Hosea 6:6 sheds light on the principles developed in Irenicum, especially on the need for mercy and its relationship to the question of yielding. Burroughs made several distinctions in matters of worship and duty, and in the nature of things, to help determine when and if concessions should be made for the sake of a higher good, namely mercy, in this case.193

First, he distinguished between “natural” worship and duties, which pertain to things owed to God and to others, and “instituted” worship and duties. The former include “such duties as we owe to God as God” and “to men as men” and “nature itself dictates the performance of them.” For example, the command to honour one’s parents is in keeping with who they are as parents. These “duties” are in the heart as well as the law and therefore, “these duties must not yield to mercy.” By contrast, he used the term

“instituted duties” to refer to such things as “church ordinances of sacraments, Christian admonition, and the like, [which] flow from God’s prerogative, and not necessarily from

192 As noted in section 2 above. 193 Sherman edition, 328ff.

his nature.”194 According to Burroughs, accommodations might only be made in the case of “instituted” church policies and practices for the sake of mercy or another “good.” He explained this principle by reference to Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 9:13 and 12:7. He interpreted these examples in Matthew as instances of a religious ordinance or practice being set aside for the sake of “mercy.”

In his “observations” on Hosea 6:6, Burroughs made three further points that set the practice of ethical discrimination in the context of worship.

It is the Christian’s skill, when two duties come together, which to choose. This is a snare in which many Christians are caught and foiled; they think both must be done at the same time, whereas the one is the duty, the other not.

Though the object of an action be spiritual, yet it is not a sufficient ground to prefer it before another action, whose object may be but natural. The ordinances of God have God for their object, and the enjoying of communion with him; yet in the performance of other actions which may be only natural, I may show more obedience to God than in offering up of sacrifice.

If God’s own worship may be forborne in case of mercy, how much more men’s institutions and inventions!195

The second of these three points refers to the distinction between “natural ordinances” and “instituted duties,” noted above. Burroughs made this clear by referring to Jesus’ interpretation of the Sabbath as “for man, not man for the Sabbath.” The Sabbath was

“instituted worship,” whereas “fearing God, loving ... God, trusting in God” were all

“natural worship.” The duty to render this “natural worship” could not be compromised,

194 Burroughs’ commentary here needs to be set in the context of his discussion on diversity and uniformity in worship, addressed above under the first dividing principle. 195 Sherman edition, 332.

in Burroughs’ analysis. Yet in cases of “instituted worship,” mercy could prevail over things analogous to “sacrifice.”

Thirdly, Burroughs advanced a criterion for ethical discrimination according to whether things are good, because they reflect God’s nature and character, or because they are commensurate with his commands. Like Aquinas, Burroughs regarded some things as inherently good, because they “refer to attributes in God’s nature and character.”196

Accordingly, he regarded mercy as an “æeternæ veritatis,” gaining eternal significance by reflecting the eternal mercifulness of God.

Mercy is good in itself, but sacrifice is only good because commanded by God’s prerogative; God’s command constitutes its goodness. Mercy is part of God’s image in man, but sacrifice is not; and by how much God’s image in man surpasses any other excellency, by so much does mercy excel sacrifice.

To sum up Burroughs’ points: “natural worship” owing to God is supreme. In other cases, mercy takes precedence over sacrifice, which means that “instituted” ordinances and forms of worship may be modified – made to “yield” – to a higher good.

9. Summary

Burroughs used a cluster of concepts in a positive sense to denote a body of practice that can promote peace in a Christian context. The various actions described by Burroughs in this respect include: yielding, pardoning, “putting up the wrong,” forbearing, and

196 Sherman edition, 328.

refraining from speaking or acting. In support of his views he referred to the Marburg

Colloquy in 1529, which he interpreted as an historical example of the practice of letting differences stand:

I have read of the like peaceable disposition in diverse German Divines, meeting to confer about matters of Religion in difference in Marburg. The conclusion of their Conference was this: Although we see we cannot hitherto fully agree about the corporal presence of the body and blood of Christ in the bread and wine, yet both parts ought to declare Christian love one to another, as far as every one can with a good conscience. Oh that this were the conclusion of all our debates and conference, wherein we cannot come up fully to one another’s judgements. [Irenicum, 256]

On the matter of yielding, he wrote favourably of Ireneus, who “pleaded for the peace of the Church, to be procured by yielding to difference of practice in such [non- fundamental] things” and who, in a letter to Victor of Rome, “tells them of the variety of practices of diverse Brethren in times before them, which was very near the Apostles’ times, who yet were at unity one with another.” [Irenicum, 17]. He routinely distinguished between being forced to yield to a religious requirement against one’s judgement, which he opposed, and the voluntary yielding out of charity, which he advocated to the extent that “conscience and reason” allow.

Chapter 4: ACCOMMODATION IN THEOLOGICAL USE

1. Overview

The concept of accommodation has been carried forward from the first five centuries, through the medieval period, and into the Reformation and modern eras. This section will show how the concept of accommodation, and the related terms of condescension and economy, have been used in recent scholarship, principally in relation to the exegesis of the works of Patristic and Reformed theologians, and in relation to studies of Pauline ethics.197

In his three-volume systematic theology, Wolfhart Pannenberg placed the theological use of accommodation as part of his prolegomena to dogmatics.198 This is fitting, in as much as the concept has served theologians as a so-called hermeneutical key, exegetical tool, or

197 See Margaret M. Mitchell, “Pauline Accommodation and ‘Condescension’ (συγκατάβασις): 1 Cor 9: 19–23 and the History of Influence,” in Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide, ed. Troels Engberg-Pedersen, 197-214 (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001). Mitchell’s related works on this topic include: “Peter’s ‘Hypocrisy’ and Paul’s: Two ‘Hypocrites’ at the Foundation of Earliest Christianity?”, New Testament Studies 58 (2012): 213-234; The Heavenly Trumpet: John Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline Interpretation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002); Paul, the Corinthians and the Birth of Christian, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010); and “‘A Variable and Many- sorted Man’: John Chrysostom’s Treatment of Pauline Inconsistency,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 6 (1998): 93-111. See also Jon Balserak, Divinity Compromised: A Study of Divine Accommodation in the Thought of John Calvin, Studies in Early Modern Religious Reforms 5 (Dordrecht: Springer, 2006), 14; Arnold Huijgen, Divine Accommodation in John Calvin’s Theology: Analysis and Assessment, Reformed Historical Theology 16 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011); Stephen D. Benin, The Footprints of God: Divine Accommodation in Jewish and Christian Thought. SUNY Series in Judaica: Hermeneutics, Mysticism, and Religion (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1993); Maria Verhoeff, untitled, Report no. 27 (Dec 2010) of the Research Centre for Early Christianity, Evangelische Theologische Faculteit Leuven, http://www.etf.edu/docman/onderzoek/research-centre-for-early-christianity- rcec?limit=5&limitstart=25&dir=ASC&order=date, accessed December 1, 2013. 198 Systematic Theology, vol. 1, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991): 34-35.

an interpretive device.199 Recently scholars have investigated the Patristic and Reformed use of the concept of accommodation as a hermeneutical tool for interpreting scripture. In the case of Patristic research, accommodation is one of a suite of related terms including condescension, economy and adaptability. Accommodation has also been espoused as feature of the Pauline epistles.

2. Linguistic Meaning of “Accommodation”

The two most relevant Greek words informing this complex of ideas are συγκατάβασις

(sunkatabasis) and συγκατάβ (sunkatabaino).200 The Patristic Greek Lexicon of

G.W.H. Lampe201 gives various shades of meanings of the words and their cognates, including: “come or go down with, descend together,” such as “into water at baptism” or

“of those who acquire a knowledge of the mystery of the descent into Hades”; “make allowances, show consideration”; “to indulge”; “to stoop, to condescend”. In respect of persons, it means “to accommodate oneself to” or “come down to the level of” another, such as with a teachers and pupils. It also connotes “God’s dealings with mankind” and his “concessions” to human limitations. The “language of scripture” is one such example.

Various cognate meanings include: “descent,” such as “of Christ into Hades” and “of angels from heaven”; also, “downward step, declension.” It respect of practice, the word group signifies “accommodation in respect of laws and customs”; “leniency” or

“concession” to “human weakness,” or “laxity.” In “respect of human relationships” it

199 Mitchell, 2001, 205; Stephen D. Benin, “Sacrifice as Education in Augustine and Chrysostom,” Church History 52, no. 1 (March 1983): 8. 200 Various scholars and sources use different combinations of Greek letters to denote the same word. The Greek letters used here vary accordingly. I have not tried to reconcile different uses. 201 G. W. H. Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961).

implies “deference, consideration” and “in respect of truth, diplomacy, reserve.” The cognate ς, used in respect of language, implies an adaptation in terminology or gracious condescension. To explain this particular use, Lampe draws from the account of the Samaritan women in the fourth chapter of the gospel of John, in which

Jesus asks her to “Go, call your husband, and come back” (4:16), knowing the man to whom he referred was not her husband. Lampe noted the same term also referred to “the

Incarnation as supreme act of condescension.” In Lampe’s lexicon, the other key term,

(symperiphora), is related to such things as consideration and diplomacy in

Christian teaching and practice, while explicitly means “to accommodate or adapt oneself to” and “to show indulgence, make allowances.”

Arnold Huijgen, in the faculty of systematic theology at Theologische Universiteit

Apeldoorn in the Netherlands, has recently published a study of Calvin’s use of the concept of accommodation.202 Huijgen observed that the “most common Greek term for the concept of accommodation is συγκατάβασις, which literally does not have the connotation of adaptation the Latin verb accommodare has, but is literally closer to condescendere, which also lacks the idea of adaptation.”203 Paul Gooch, a philosophy professor at the University of Toronto, highlighted the Latin lineage of the concept in the word accommodare, “to suit” or “to fit.”204 Gooch also noted that accommodation as a word “is never used in any of the standard translations of the Bible (AV, RV, Moffatt,

RSV, NEB). The Greek is found only once, in Acts 25:5 where it has

202 Huijgen. 203 Huijgen, 58. Balserak, 15, also treats Latin uses of the concept under a range of other words. 204 Paul W. Gooch, Partial Knowledge: Philosophical Studies in Paul (Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame Press, 1987), 127.

simply the meaning ‘go down with’.205 Margaret Mitchell, Professor of New Testament and Early Christian Literature at the University of Chicago, has researched the way patristic theologians used the twin concepts of accommodation and condescension to interpret difficult passages in the Pauline epistles. Mitchell used “condescension” to translate συγκατάβασις and “accommodation” to translate , but observed that the two terms intersect in patristic writing.206

3. Recent Scholarship

Mitchell has identified Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–c. 215) as the first theologian to use the “technical language” of condescension and accommodation to interpret 1

Corinthians 9:19-23.207 The example Mitchell considered is taken from Clement’s

Stromata. This was the third part of his trilogy on living as a Christian. In this passage,

Clement presented an apologetic for Paul’s circumcision of Timothy208 in light of the passage in 1 Corinthians, where Paul explained why he became “as a Jew to the Jews.”

Clement argued:

205 Peter Richardson and Paul W. Gooch, “Accommodation Ethics,” Tyndale Bulletin 29 (1978): 93. 206 Mitchell, “Pauline Accommodation,” 204; see citation in n. 194 above. 207 “For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings.” NRSV. The application of these terms to this passage became widespread in early Christian interpretation, according to Mitchell. See “Pauline Accommodation,” 205. 208 Acts 16:3: “Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and had him circumcised because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.” NRSV.

To illustrate: the noble apostle circumcised Timothy, though loudly declaring and writing that circumcision made with hands profits nothing. But that he might not, by dragging all at once away from the law to the circumcision of the heart through faith those of the Hebrews who were reluctant listeners, compel them to break away from the synagogue, he, accommodating himself to the Jews, became a Jew that he might gain all. He, then, who submits to accommodate himself merely for the benefit of his neighbours, for the salvation of those for whose sake he accommodates himself, not partaking in any dissimulation through the peril impending over the just from those who envy them, such an one by no means acts with compulsion. But for the benefit of his neighbours alone, he will do things which would not have been done by him primarily, if he did not do them on their account.209

John Balserak, lecturer in theology and religious studies at the University of Bristol, recently published a study of divine accommodation in the works of Calvin. Balserak showed that accommodation has been employed since the second century to interpret “the ways of God with his people.”210 Stephen Benin, associate professor in Judaic Studies at the University of Memphis, has found foundations for the concept in Jewish thought.211

Balserak and Huijgen, in their recent works on accommodation in Calvin, reviewed the use of the concepts of accommodation and condescension in Justin Martyr, Origen,

Clement, Justin, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Athanasius, Augustine and Chrysostom.212 John

Chrysostom (347-407) has been called ‘le docteur de la condescendance’213 for his wide- ranging use of the concept of sunkatabasis. Most scholars exploring the pervasive patristic understanding of accommodation cite the foundational work of David M.

209The Stromata, 7.9, from the translation by William Wilson, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight, . 210 Balserak, 14. 211 Benin. 212 Huijgen, 59ff, and Balserak (cited above), 14. 213 Henry Pinard, Les Infiltrations paiennes dans l’ancienne loi d’apres les Pères de l’église, Recherches de Science Religieuse 9 (1919): 197-221. Cited in Balserak in Mitchell (2001), 307, n.74.

Rylaarsdam, Professor of Historical Theology at Calvin Theological Seminary.214

Rylaarsdam, who found that συγκατάβ and cognates occurred 450 times in the extant works of Chrysostom, claimed that “Chrysostom’s theological understanding of

συγκατάβασις is a hermeneutical key permeating all his works.215 Among the Patristic theologians who employed the concept, Huijgen singled out Chrysostom for his comprehensive use of the accommodation/condescension motif in key respects: as a way to preserve the transcendence of God, whose revelation is necessarily an accommodation to human finitude and sinfulness; as a description of God’s pedagogical method, so to speak, in which he stoops to speak at the level of humans or in which he guides his people to maturity, as through the use and disuse of cultic sacrifice; as part of the doctrine of the Incarnation, in which Jesus embodies God’s gracious condescension; and as a hermeneutical tool for explaining difficult passages of the Old Testament and, in the

New, in dealing with passages in the Pauline epistles.216

Robert C. Hill, in an introduction to a selection of John Chrysostom’s homilies on

Genesis, preferred “considerateness” to “condescension” to convey the meaning of

Chrysostom’s use of the Greek term.217 Balserak further observed that Chrysostom preferred the verb form, õ ,218 which would be in keeping with his emphasis that accommodation not merely technical term for interpreting scripture, but conveyed

214 David M. Rylaarsdam, “The Adaptability of Divine Pedagogy: Sunkatabasis in the Theology and Rhetoric of John Chrysostom,” PhD diss., University of Notre Dame, 2000. I did not read this dissertation. 215 From his dissertation, cited in Huijgen, 75 n137. Huijgen notes the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae “provides 900 instances of synkatabasis and cognates” and in this respect “Chrysostom outstrips Origen,” who employs such terms 41 times. See Verhoeff, 1. 216 Huijgen, 75ff. Chrysostom would have held to a wide view of the books attributed to Paul. 217 See the introduction to John Chrysostom. Homilies on Genesis, 1–17, trans. Robert C. Hill, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, vol. 74 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2010), 17-18. 218 Balserak, 15.

something of who God is in relation to his creation. In his homilies published under the title, On the Incomprehensible Nature of God, Chrysostom emphasised that God’s condescension is an aspect of the doctrine of God that relates to the holiness of God, whose presence would be all-consuming if he did not accommodate himself to creatures.219 Chrysostom distinguished between God’s essence and his accommodated revelation of himself in epiphanies and scripture; whereas the Incarnation is the very essence of God dwelling among his people.

In the Middle Ages, the idea of accommodation informed the writings of Gregory the

Great (540–604), Hugh of St. Victor (1096–1141) and Duns Scotus (1265/66–1308), among others. Its later “advocates included Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536), Thomas de

Vio Cajetan (1469–1534), Martin Bucer (1491–1551) and Peter Matyr Vermigli (1499–

1562).”220 Reformed theologians such as John Calvin (1509–1564) and Francis Turretin

(1623–1687) and, following them, Charles Hodge (1797–1878), employed the concept in their exegesis or doctrinal discussions.221 Approaching the topic as a Reformed scholar,

Richard A. Muller has located the concept of accommodation within the doctrine of God, noting that “Reformers and their [Protestant] scholastic followers all recognized that God must in some way condescend or accommodate himself to human ways of knowing in

219 “Homily 3,” On the Incomprehensible Nature of God, trans. Paul W. Harkins, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, vol. 72 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1982). 220Balserak (cited above), 14, and Huijgen, 93ff. On this point see also James D. Tracy, “Ad Fontes: The Humanist Understanding of Scripture as Nourishment for the Soul,” in Christian Spirituality II: High Middle Ages and Reformation, ed. Jill Raitt (New York: Crossroad, 1987), 263. 221 Huijgen. See also Martin I. Klauber, “Francis Turretin on Biblical Accommodation: Loyal Calvinist or Reformed Scholastic?” Westminster Theological Journal 55, no. 1 (March 1993): 73-86; Ford Lewis Battles, “God was Accommodating Himself to Human Capacity,” Interpretation 31, no. 1 (Jan 1977): 19-38; and Mark Rogers, “Charles Hodge and the Doctrine of Accommodation,” Trinity Journal 31, no. 2 (Sept 2010): 225-242. Rogers (232 n.27) cites Richard Muller as noting: “Accommodation is ‘found quite consistently among the Reformed orthodox both in their understanding of theology and revelation’.” See Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 4 volumes (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 2:188.

order to reveal himself.”222 It is also evident in Luther’s writing223 and was a pronounced feature in the work of Erasmus. Huijgen noted that Erasmus embraced the concept of accommodation in his theology to such an extent that he regarded adaptability as a virtue.

Erika Rummel, Professor Emerita of History at Wilifrid Laurier University and adjunct professor at the University of Toronto, has also addressed the place of accommodation in

Erasmus’ theology, in humanism generally, and its historical role in attempts to resolve religious conflict in Germany in the sixteenth century.224 Rummel associated the practice of accommodation with making “mutual concessions” in pursuit of concord and she maintained there was a strong association between the practice of accommodation and the ideals of humanism.225

4. Negative Connotation

John Reumann, professor emeritus at the Lutheran Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, has linked the patristic use of accommodation with the pragmatic notion of οἰκονομία. In

Reumann’s assessment, patristic exegetes sometimes made a “rather shady use of

222 Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1985), 19. Muller also points to the relationship between the twin ideas of accommodation and condescension and their parallel in the “orthodox Protestant distinction between theologia archetypa and theologia ectypa.” The former refers to the wisdom of God ‘in himself’, as it were, and latter to the communicated wisdom of God. For an excellent treatment of archetypal and ectypal theology and the development of this distinction by Franciscus Junius, see Willem van Asselt, “The Fundamental Meaning of Theology: Archetypal and Ectypal Theology in Seventeenth-century Reformed Thought,” Westminster Theological Journal 64, no. 2 (Sept 2002): 319-335. 223 Balserak, 17. 224 Erika Rummel, The Confessionalization of Humanism in Reformation Germany, Oxford Studies in Historical Theology (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000). 225 Rummel, 121ff. Rummel maintained that humanists’ inclination towards consensus was born from their skeptical philosophy and training in the liberal arts of dialogue, in contrast, she argued, with “theologians” trained in adversarial disputation.

oikonomia in ethical matters.”226 The pagan meaning of the term implied “shrewdness” or

“expedient” dealings. It was also evident literature, as a device intended to conceal something through “artful” rhetoric or the “arrangement” of material. He explained it this way:

The word is often used in the Fathers, as is well known, to denote an “accommodation” in ethical matters. It is an “arrangement” whereby, according to Athanasius, “with regard to the same action it is not lawful to do it under one circumstance and at one time, but under circumstance it is both conveniently forgiven and acquiesced in. Such a notion, of things done “by economy” ( ’ ), is especially often brought forward by patristic writers to account for questionable or offensive details in biblical narratives.227

In his commentary on Galatians 2:5, for example, Chrysostom employed οἰκονομία in the way indicated by Reumann to solve the conundrum of Timothy’s circumcision. As

Chrysostom explained:

The blessed Paul himself, who meant to abrogate circumcision, when he was about to send Timothy to teach the Jews, first circumcised him and so sent him. This he did, that his hearers might the more readily receive him; he began by circumcising, that in the end he might abolish it. But this reason he imparted to Timothy only, and told it not to the disciples. Had they known that the very purpose of his circumcision was the abolition of the rite, they would never have listened to his preaching, and the whole benefit would have been lost. But now their ignorance was of the greatest use to them, for their idea that his conduct proceeded from a regard to the Law, led them to receive both him and his doctrine with kindness and courtesy, and having gradually received him, and become instructed, they abandoned their old customs.228

Reumann also offered the example of Chrysostom’s commentary on the dispute between

Peter and Paul described in Galatians 2:11-14, in which he tried to deflect the taint of

226 John Reumann, “Oikonomia as ‘Ethical Accommodation’ in the Fathers, and its Pagan Backgrounds,” Studia Patristica 3 (1961): 370. 227 “Letter to Amun,” Oxford translation, revised by G. Alexander. Here, “scheme” translates οἰκονομία. 228 “Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on Galatians,” Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers I: 13, edited by Philip Schaff.

100

hypocrisy in Peter’s action by suggesting Paul and Peter acted in concert “for the benefit of their hearers.” 229

For had he [Peter], having allowed circumcision when preaching at Jerusalem, changed his course at Antioch, his conduct would have appeared to those Jews to proceed from fear of Paul, and his disciples would have condemned his excess of pliancy. And this would have created no small offence; but in Paul, who was well acquainted with all the facts, his withdrawal would have raised no such suspicion, as knowing the intention with which he acted. Wherefore Paul rebukes, and Peter submits, that when the master is blamed, yet keeps silence, the disciples may more readily come over.

This shows the idea of oikonomia in the exegesis of Chrysostom. In this passage,

Chrysostom posits the idea of a “scheme” or “understanding” between Peter and Paul, which is not evident to their audiences.

5. Pauline Studies

Paul Gooch and Peter Richardson, Professor Emeritus of Religion at the University of

Toronto, treated aspects of Paul’s apparent adaptability in a positive light in their jointly published essays under the title, “Accommodation Ethics.”230 Their jointly authored introduction stated:

The thesis of these papers is that the idea of accommodation is present in the New Testament, as Origen and Chrysostom properly recognized (though they explained it away), that it is found particularly in Paul, and that in Paul it is stated as a positive principle of behaviour. Accommodation is not primarily a pedagogical activity, as many of the dictionary articles propose, but a matter of ethics. Paul deliberately acted in ways that were accommodating for a specific goal. He was not ashamed or embarrassed about this, but acted openly and stated the principle forthrightly. A stimulus towards a proper understanding of Paul’s ethical stance may be useful after a long period of neglect.

229 Reumann, 370. Here he cites, but does not quote, Chrysostom’s homilies on Galatians. 230 Richardson and Gooch (cited above, no. 202).

101

In his earlier of two essays (1978) Gooch treated accommodation under three headings: theological, epistemological and ethical.231 In his later essay (1987), he indicated that these categories were interrelated, not distinct,232 and he offered an alternative definition of the third form as practical, rather than ethical, accommodation.233 His later essay is also more critical of the moral quandary posed by “ethical” or “practical” accommodation. Here are his definitions of the three main types of accommodation.

“Theological accommodation occurs when someone surrenders some item or items of belief in order to be acceptable to some other party.” The matters in question may be slight or significant and the motives for accommodation may be to please, for example, or to maintain peace. “Epistemological accommodation is required where two parties operate with conceptual frameworks some distance apart and where one wishes to communicate with the other.” This is closely connected with pedagogy, inasmuch as teachers accommodate their mode of expression and methods in the best interests of their students and Gooch offers Socrates as a classic example. “The third type of accommodation is ethical. It is concerned not with the truth or transmission of beliefs, but with behaviour. It is practised whenever one adapts his pattern of living to the lifestyles of various groups, having his actions dictated by the situations and circumstances in which he finds himself.” Gooch also examined the ethical problems implied in the practice of accommodation. These include questions about individual integrity, hypocritical behaviour, and moral vacillating.234 The logical relevance of the concept to

231 Richardson and Gooch, 99ff. 232 Gooch, Partial Knowledge, 129. 233 Gooch, Partial Knowledge, 129. 234 Gooch, Partial Knowledge, 130.

102

matters in the church arises from the nature of the practice itself, because, as Gooch noted, the “basic activity of accommodating is [necessarily] relational…”235

In his study of 1 Corinthians 9:19-23, Gooch was concerned with the moral justification of Paul’s actions, not his method. He asked not whether there was a justification for the

“maxim” of “all things to all men,” but whether the act of appearing to be so, or behaving as if it were so, could be morally justified. He concluded by distinguishing “hypocritical accommodation,” which should be censured, from “justifiable accommodation” in pursuit of a virtuous objective. He perceived that Paul would not have accommodated himself to doctrinal error, but did accommodate his behavior to win converts, so long as he did not controvert the gospel he sought to proclaim.236 Gooch concluded that the pivotal point for

Paul was his identity “in Christ.”237 For Paul, “being” in Christ meant all other identities were subsidiary and thus he was not compromising by adapting his behaviour to circumstances in pursuit of “the prize.” In that sense, he was neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, and could not be faulted for hypocrisy in his zeal to serve the risen Lord and share the gospel.

In his published dissertation Idol Food in Corinth, Alex Cheung, who is now Professor of

Biblical Interpretation at Christian Witness Theological Seminary in California, treated

Paul’s instructions regarding food sacrificed to idols.238 Of interest, and contrary to the premise of most scholars investigating this topic in Paul’s letters, Cheung conducted his

235 Gooch, Partial Knowledge, 127. 236 Richardson and Gooch, 102. 237 Richardson and Gooch, 111. 238 Alex T. Cheung, Idol Food in Corinth: Jewish. Background and Pauline Legacy, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 176 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999).

103

study on this matter for the very reason that eating food sacrificed to idols was an issue for him as a Christian in his Chinese culture. Chapters 8, 9 and 10 in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians have become a classic locus for discussing Christian ethics.239 Cheung argued that the origin of the food in question did matter to Paul; to eat of it was not an indifferent matter.240 His study included a summary and critique of scholarship on this subject, which furnished helpful insight into the works of two other scholars: Alan Segal

(1945–2011), who was Professor Emeritus of Jewish Studies at Columbia University, and

Gerd Theissen, Professor Emeritus of New Testament theology at the University of

Heidelberg.241 Thiessen has suggested that Paul’s distinction between “weak” and

“strong” in the debates applies to social classes rather than to Gentile and Jewish

Christians. Either way, his assessment of Paul’s reasoning makes the relevant point:

“Paul’s recommendation, based on love, that the higher classes accommodate their behaviour to the lower classes, only mitigates the tension between the two but allows the differing customs to continue to exist.”242

Segal has used the notion of accommodation to interpret Paul’s actions in the case of the

“conflict” over circumcision.243 In his interpretation of 1 Cor 7:17-20, Segal suggested

Paul practiced “diplomatic accommodation” and advocated “an accommodation to the

239 Acknowledged by Cheung, n.18. 240 Cheung, e.g., 16, 296. 241 Gerd Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth, edited and translated and with an introduction by John H. Schütz, Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982); Alan F. Segal, Paul The Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1990). 242 Theissen, 139. 243 Segal, 214.

104

feelings of the circumcised.”244 He surmised that Paul was willing, “in the name of church unity,” to “make an accommodation to his opponents’ position” when it was possible to do so “without compromising” his convictions. Segal also considered Paul’s response to the Roman church perplexed by their appropriate response, as Christians, to religious scruples about food. He concluded that as Paul strove to “meld two communities together” – Jewish and Gentile – he was prepared to practice

“accommodation in ritual but not in principle.”245 Like Gooch, Segal maintained that for

Paul, the deciding factor “for faith was to be in Christ.”246

Jewish scholar David J. Rudolph has published the most recent and comprehensive study on the use of the concept of accommodation to interpret Paul, although that forms a secondary concern to his primary interest in Paul’s ministry in relation to his Jewish identity.247 Rudolph focussed on 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 and linked the concept of accommodation with “the relinquishment of rights.”248 He found evidence for a “Pauline principle of accommodation” grounded in Jesus’ table-fellowship with sinners. Rudolph categorized Jesus’ loving practice as “accommodation.”249

Theologian Ben Meyer, formerly New Testament professor at McMaster University, surmised that the “critical issue” for the early church embarking on a “world mission was to find a way of accommodating cultural diversity without sacrificing ecclesial unity.” In

244 Segal, 214-15. 245 Segal, 253. 246 Segal, 224. 247 David J. Rudolph, A Jew to the Jews: Jewish Contours of Pauline Flexibility in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). 248 Rudolph, 115. 249 Rudolph, 173.

105

Meyer’s reading, many of the instances of strife that Paul encountered in the Corinthian church reflected the clash of cultures as nascent Christianity grew up from its Jewish roots and clashed with “Hellenistic paganism.” This meant that “Paul repeatedly found himself having to function as a ḥākām, “man-of-practical-discernment,” specifying the points at which intervention was called for…” The problem of circumcision narrated in

Acts, in contrast to many other cases of disputes in 1 Corinthians, reflected a

“significant” and genuine point of “opposition” within the church.

Christian ethicist William M. Longsworth, writing in the Methodist tradition, has also attributed to Paul the practice of making “accommodations” to standing practices for the sake of “avoiding serious harm to other Christians and the community, and promoting their good.”250 Longsworth located this practice within the set of “basic theological convictions” and principles for discernment evident in Paul’s epistles.

…among Paul’s responses to particular issues in his various letters it is possible to discern both an implicit set of distinctions about classes of moral judgments, and an implicit method of moral reasoning. His classes of judgments are two. First, there are moral prohibitions (e.g., murder and fornication) and doctrinal beliefs (e.g., justification by faith, and the gospel proclaimed to the Gentiles) to which he permits no exception. These moral and theological concerns are of supreme importance to Paul and on their account he is willing to be most harsh with those who violate them. Secondly, there are descriptions of the content of new life ‘in Christ’ or ‘in the Spirit’ (e.g., ‘for freedom Christ has set you free’ Gal. 5:1) which in light of particular situations and the realities of human life he must carefully qualify and, in some cases, compromise. The criteria governing his qualifications and accommodations are avoiding serious harm to other Christians and the community, and promoting their good.

250 William M. Longsworth, “Ethics in Paul: The Shape of Christian Life and a Method of Moral Reasoning,” Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics (1981): 30-31.

106

6. An Historical Example of Accommodation

The following illustration is taken from Yoder’s account of a dispute between Ulrich

Zwingli (1484–1531), as the leader of the reformation in Zurich, and Conrad Grebel (c.

1498–1526), as the leader of the group that became known as the Swiss Brethren or

Anabaptists.251 In his expansive work on the development of Anabaptist theology and practice, Yoder paid particular attention to this breach in fellowship and theology. In

Yoder’s reading, it was precipitated by Zwingli’s apparent compromise with municipal authorities over the Mass and “gave birth to the two major religious phenomena of modern Christendom, state-church Protestantism on the one hand and the Free Church on the other.”252 Hence, the significance of his considering the texts of the formal disputations leading to the rupture in 1523. C. Arnold Snyder, who is Professor Emeritus of church history at Conrad Grebel University College at the University of Waterloo, affirmed the rich potential of the historical records Yoder chose to study. Snyder noted:

Yoder focused his historical analysis on the conversations, dialogues, and disputations (Gespräche) between the Swiss Anabaptists and the Zwinglian reformers. This choice of source material provided a fertile field, comprised as it was of historical documents in which the protagonists debated biblical truth, faithful action, and the shape of a biblical church. These were documents to which biblical, theological, and ethical questions could later be addressed.253

Yoder’s sequential reading of three official memoranda showed the progression of ideas that shaped the final decision of the Zurich council. That governing body eventually quashed evangelical plans to replace the Mass with a celebration of the Lord’s Supper, in which people would have received the “the body and the blood” of the Lord in both kinds

251 Yoder, “Zwinglian Reformation,” 129. 252 Yoder, “Zwinglian Reformation,” 128. 253 Snyder, “History with Theological Ethics,” 6.

107

– bread and wine. En route to that decision, it published a memorandum in December

1523 reflecting a clear “principle” and “method” of “tolerance,” according to Yoder.254

Councillors had intended to grant permission for the introduction of the reformed Lord’s

Supper alongside the Mass, so as to allow priests and congregants to follow their own convictions without duress or persecution. Without a close reading of the progress of this debate, a moderate proposal such as this would have been lost from historic view, replaced only by the final decision. As it was, the council quickly set aside its moderate proposal to accommodate a new evangelical practice alongside the established practice of the Catholic Church. The abolition of the Mass in Zurich was delayed for another 16 months.255 This example of an attempt at toleration offers one example of how a theologically discredited practice might have coexisted with a reformed practice, for the sake of concord in the church.

7. A Contemporary Example of Accommodation

In my own Anglican Church of Canada, the adoption of new pastoral practices for blessing the unions of same-sex couples provides a case in point. Recently, parishes within the Anglican Diocese of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island have been responding to a bishop’s charge to consider their response to adoption of a liturgical blessing for couples of the same sex. Further off in the horizon, the Anglican Church of

Canada will be asked to consider changing its canon law to allow priests who wish to do so to solemnize the marriage of same-sex couples. A draft concept to that effect was

254 Yoder, 137 and 140. 255 Yoder, 138.

108

introduced at a general synod in 2013. It proposed what would be, in effect, a modus vivendi – a way of “living in disagreement.”256 It would establish a “conscience clause” for priests who could not solemnize such a marriage. The church’s discussion of the concept will take place over the course of six years. During that time, individuals, congregations and their synod delegates will have to discern the right course of action on a very divisive matter touching on doctrine and practice. Should the proposal come to pass in a way that resembles the current proposal put forward for discussion, very real differences of opinion on the theology and practice of marriage would be allowed to stand.

8. Summary

Accommodation has a suite of meanings, in Latin and Greek, and has been employed in myriad ways in successive generations of the church. There is a significant body of scholarship on the use of the concept of accommodation as an interpretive device in

Patristic exegesis. Pauline scholars surveyed here have focussed on accommodation as a policy in settling divisive matters. The concept of accommodation, as understood in

Pauline scholarship, could likewise describe what Burroughs had in mind when he exhorted Christians to yield for the sake of fellowship, “so far as reason and conscience allow,” and to let irreconcilable differences stand out of deference for conscience. In the case of Burroughs, the meaning of accommodation relates to the practice of accommodating differences and also to the notion of deference. Like “yielding,”

256 Phrasing borrowed from Allan Gibbard, Wise Choices, Apt Feelings: A Theory of Normative Judgment (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 245.

109

“deference” is not a subject of critical scholarship, although it sits well with the instruction given in Paul’s collected letters. It also associated with the cluster of meanings associated with the concept of accommodation, as can be seen from Lampe’s proposed glosses. Lampe’s entry for συγκατάβασις noted that, in “respect of human relationships,” it implies “deference” and “consideration.” Of interest, Lampe also indicated that in

“respect of truth,” the same word implies “diplomacy [and] reserve.” As seen in Chapter

2, Burroughs’ Irenicum advances both ideas.

110

Chapter 5: THE NEED FOR DISCERNMENT

1. Discernment

So far this study has looked at Burroughs’ principles for reasoning about the nature of division. He maintained that seemingly irreconcilable divisions over matters deemed

“indifferent” to salvation should not lead to a breach of Christian fellowship, but on occasion should be left to stand out of deference to one another’s conscientious understanding of what is good and edifying. Allowing differences to stand for the sake of peace is a classic modus vivendi. The remaining part of this study will seek to place

Burroughs’ Irenicum within the context of Christian discernment.

Burroughs maintained that those “who hold the light of truth before others should be united in peace as one among themselves.” [Irenicum, 35] The necessary gift, or skill, that appears to be at stake is discernment – when to act on one’s conscience; when to refrain from judgement; when to abide difference in the name of peace; when to speak and when to be silent. Reasoning about ethical action, in the manner conceived by

Burroughs, would appear to fit within the kind of practical wisdom Paul had in mind in his use of the word ἀ θή ς (aisthēsis) in his letter to the Philippians (1:9). Aisthēsis is often translated as ‘discernment’ and in this letter it is related to ἐ ώ ς (epignōsis) meaning ‘insight’.257 Eckhard Schnabel, the Mary F. Rockefeller Distinguished Professor

257 Eckhard Schnabel, “How Paul Developed His Ethics,” in Understanding Paul’s Ethics: Twentieth Century Approaches, edited by Brian S. Rosner, 267–97 (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 289.

111

of New Testament Studies at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, addressed the problem of Christian strife in a study on Pauline ethics. Of particular interest, Schnabel discussed the purpose of discernment within the overall theme of “the unity of the church” in Philippians. Paul’s letter to the church in Philippi includes a prayer that their love would increase, leading to “insight (epignōsis) and practical understanding

(aisthēsis, 1.9) of the will of God and its realization in practical conduct…”258 Schnabel defined aisthēsis as “ethical discrimination,” while the Theological Dictionary of the

New Testament follows Gerhard Delling in defining it as “moral discrimination.”259 In

Schnabel’s reading of Phil. 1.10, the role of reason, or the mind ( ς), is to “examine and discriminate options of conduct” and believers are to determine “that which matters in the specific situation, which surpasses other things in being God’s will”260 – i.e., to approve (δοκιμάζειν) the things that are excellent (τὰ διαφέροντα). Here Paul is expressing a positive notion (διαφέροντα) of which ἀδιάφορα is the negative.261 James L.

Jaquette, who was previously an assistant professor of theology at Africa University in

Zimbabwe, also used Phil. 1:9-10 to illustrate his point that Paul contrasts what does not matter to those “in Christ” with “what is genuinely significant.”262 Jaquette considered

258 Schnabel, 289. 259 “Aisthesis,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 1, edited by Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich and Geoffrey William Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1985) I:29. 260 Schnabel, 290. 261 I am grateful to Dr. Glenn Wooden of Acadia Divinity College for drawing my attention to this point in his examination of my thesis. 262 James L. Jaquette, Discerning What Counts: The Formation of the Adiaphora Topos in Paul’s Letters, Society of Biblical Literature 146 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 213ff. See also Jaquette, “Life and Death, Adiaphora, and Paul’s Rhetorical Strategies,” Novum Testamentum 38, no. 1 (Jan 1996): 30-54. Will Deming, who has also published work on Paul’s teaching in this regard, has questioned Jaquette’s scholarship in the earier of these two publications. However, having read his work, I would be remiss not to credit his observations, which seem uncontentious. See Deming’s book review, “‘Discerning What Counts: The Formation of the Adiaphora Topos in Paul’s Letters,” by James L. Jaquette,” Journal of Biblical Literature 115, no. 4 (Winter 1996): 758.

112

“three antithetic epigrams [in which] Paul clearly identifies things that do not matter and things that do – 1 Cor. 7:19; Gal. 5:6; 6:15.”263 In these passages, the value of circumcision is diminished in relation to “keeping the commandments of God,” “faith working through love,” and the “new creation,” respectively. In his commentary on

Romans, Ernst Käsemann also took up Paul’s teaching on what does and does not matter.

In Käsemann’s view, Paul was “not formulating a doctrine of adiaphora.” Rather, he was demonstrating that “precisely [within] the field of the so-called adiaphora” distinctions must be made and criteria for discernment applied.264

James F. Childress, ethics professor and the director of the Institute for Practical Ethics and Public Life at the University of Virginia, argued some time ago that the “use of

Scripture for deliberation and justification in making moral judgments is a crucial and neglected function of the Bible in Christian ethics.”265 A cursory review of the literature published since he made that assertion in 1980 suggests this may still be a fair assessment. Part of the problem I have encountered in conducting a review of the literature is the lack of specificity in the use of such terms as “Christian ethics,”

“discernment,” and “moral reasoning,” which mean many things in many contexts and which cross over such varied disciplines as practical theology, biblical studies, psychology, and casuistry or “moral theology.” The following section aims to specify exactly where Burroughs’ proposal might fit within ethical discourse. Following that, the

263 Jaquette, 214. 264 Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980, 1994), 375-6. 265 James F. Childress, “Scripture and Christian Ethics: Some Reflections on the Role of Scripture in Moral Deliberation and Justification,” Interpretation 34, no. 4 (Oct 1980): 371.

113

remainder of this chapter will set Burroughs’ framework for thinking about divisive matters in the context of practical moral reasoning, or discernment.

2. Practical Moral Reasoning and Prudence

In the context of philosophy, reasoning about what to do in situations of ethical conflict would fall within the kind of “practical wisdom” described by Aristotle.266 It would also be associated with the cardinal virtue of prudence. Following in the tradition of Ambrose,

Jerome, Augustine and Pope Gregory I (540–604), Thomas Aquinas treated prudence as one of the four cardinal virtues, along with justice, fortitude and temperance.267 In his

“Treatise on Prudence and Justice,” Aquinas considered prudence to be “the knowledge of what to seek and what to avoid.”268 Aquinas thought of prudence as belonging to the

“cognitive faculty” and being motivated by love. Building on another quote from

Augustine – “prudence is love discerning aright that which helps from that which hinders us in tending to God” – Aquinas supposed that prudence “is said to be love, not indeed essentially, but in so far as love moves to the act of prudence.… Now love is said to

266 For a discussion of this, see Aristotle and C. D. C. Reeve, Aristotle on Practical Wisdom: Nicomachean Ethics VI. Translated with an Introduction, Analysis, and Commentary (Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press, 2013), 1-41; 43-87. 267 For the most recent and thorough treatment of the cardinal virtues and their appropriation and development in the Christian tradition, see István P. Bejczy, The Cardinal Virtues in the Middle Ages: A Study in Moral Thought from the Fourth to the Fourteenth Century, Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History, 202 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2011). 268 Aquinas, “Treatise on Prudence and Justice,” QQ 47-122 of Summa Theologica, 47:1 (Christian Classics Ethereal Library), http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/SS.html, accessed January 6, 2014. Here Aquinas quotes Augustine’s “Questions,” qu. 61. See Augustine, De diversis quaestionibus octaginta tribus/Eighty-three Different Questions, trans. David L. Mosher (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1982). Aquinas acknowledged the work of Pope Gregory I in establishing the four virtues as part of the Christian tradition, which he did in his classic commentary on Job, known as Magna Moralia, or Moralia on Job; however, the Christian appropriation of these four classic, pagan virtues began much earlier in the church’s history. See Bejczy, 2011, cited above.

114

discern because it moves the reason to discern.” He also distinguished between

“absolute” wisdom, as a thing of God, and “wisdom for man,” which is prudence.

Prudence is therefore an accommodated wisdom, “but not wisdom absolutely.” Earlier in the Summa Theologica, in Question 45:1 on the “Gift of Wisdom,” Aquinas set absolute wisdom in relation to God: “he who knows the cause that is simply the highest, which is

God, is said to be wise simply, because he is able to judge and set in order all things according to Divine rules.” If prudent discernment is a virtue, so Aquinas, it is a virtue made possibly by a gift of God. For human wisdom that attains to the wisdom of God is one of the gifts of God, argued Aquinas. He wrote: Now man obtains this judgment through the Holy Ghost, according to 1 Cor. 2:15: ‘The spiritual man judgeth all things,’ because as stated in the same chapter (1 Cor 2:10), ‘the Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God.’ Wherefore it is evident that wisdom is a gift of the Holy Ghost.”

And further:

The wisdom which is called a gift of the Holy Ghost, differs from that which is an acquired intellectual virtue, for the latter is attained by human effort, whereas the latter is ‘descending from above’ (James 3:15). In like manner it differs from faith, since faith assents to the Divine truth in itself, whereas it belongs to the gift of wisdom to judge according to the Divine truth.

István P. Bejczy, formerly a Senior Research Fellow in Medieval History at the

University of Nijmegen in the Netherlands, has made a detailed study of the cardinal virtues and their appropriation and development in the Christian tradition. According to

Bejczy, the “Church Fathers” Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine all regarded the cardinal virtues as “divine gifts,” whereby “God permitted his followers to participate in divine goodness to some extent in their earthly existence.”269

269 Bejczy, see n. 267.

115

3. Metaethics and Heuristics

The Irenicum of Burroughs establishes a set of parameters to guide the process of reasoning about disputed matters within the church. Of particular interest, it establishes a framework for considering when and when not to yield to practices or opinions with which an individual might disagree. Applying the formal distinctions between normative ethics and metaethics, Burroughs’ approach can be categorized as a form of the latter. In an introductory essay on ethical theory, David Copp, a philosophy professor at the

University of Florida, explained the function of each mode of ethical discourse. The role of normative ethics is to make “moral claims,” while the role of metaethics is to consider claims “about moral claims or about morality.”270

Meyer has described the potential for heuristics to be employed in theological inquiry. In education, heuristics are understood as a method, sometimes experimental, to guide students in the process of discovering things for themselves. In theological inquiry, heuristics may guide understanding by asking the question: “what, in a context of inquiry, sets limits and, within those limits, invites a determinate answer?” Heuristics provide an experimental, rather than a prescriptive method of problem-solving, such as by introducing an intermediary step, such as redefining a problem in a new way to provide an alternative perspective. Understood in this sense, heuristics might serve to develop new insight by introducing intermediary questions that develop the meaning of an original statement or question.271 In a way, Burroughs does this by taking the sting out of

270 David Copp, “Introduction,” in The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory, edited by David Copp, 3-35 (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 5ff. 271 Meyer, 168-173; 209.

116

Christian conflict, first by changing the focus of debate from who is right and wrong to what can be accepted for the sake of the other; then he provides a framework for considering whether there are justifiable grounds for yielding.

There is a primary difference between philosophical views of ethical theory, however, and a Christian understanding of ethical action informed by Paul’s perspective on relations among Christians who are part of the “body of Christ” and who are “in Christ.”

Paul’s letters establish the community of the faithful as the location in which congregations discern together the right course of action in such ethical matters as the debates over food in Corinth and Rome.

4. ‘Ecclesial Ethics’

How do individuals within the ecclesia satisfy the requirement “that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment”?272 What is the congregation’s role or the individual’s part in moral reasoning and decision-making in cases of conflict within the corporate life of the church? The critical role of a so-called “communal hermeneutics” within the ministry of the church is at the heart of the problem being studied here.

The term “ecclesial ethics” denotes ethical deliberation by members of churches in church settings, primarily within congregations, but also in broader levels of church

272 1 Cor 1:10.

117

organization. The adjective “ecclesial” describes the communal context for ethical deliberation, whereas the adjective “Christian” before “ethics” does not delimit the subject in the same way. “Christian ethics” typically refers to the articulation, analysis and application of Christians “norms” in ethical reflection and to an evaluation of the mode of ethical justification – whether deontological, teleological or consequentialist.

Timothy F. Sedgwick, the Clinton S. Quinton Professor of Christian Ethics at Virginia

Theological Seminary, has suggested “ecclesial ethics” are Christian ethics grounded in

“the identity and mission of the church.”273 He has also suggested that they can and should be nourished by resources from the past. In an introduction to a collection of essays in The Anglican Theological Review, Sedgwick explained the concept of “moral traditioning” in the field of Christian ethics in the Anglican tradition, by which he meant

“passing on resources for the spiritual and moral tasks of forming and supporting the body of Christ.”274

Samuel Wells, Visiting Professor of Christian Ethics at King’s College in London, and

Stanley Hauerwas, a United Methodist ethicist and theologian, have directed their attention to Christian ethics in the context of church practice.275 They have “sought to articulate the constructive dimension of ecclesial ethics (p. 166).”276 For Hauerwas, especially, the ecclesial context for reading scripture is critical – as it is for Vigen

Guroian. He writes from an Orthodox perspective as Professor of Religious Studies in

273 Timothy F. Sedgwick, “Anglican Ethics and Moral Traditioning,” Anglican Theological Review 94, no. 4 (Sept 2012): 670. 274 Sedgwick, 670. 275 Stanley Hauerwas and Samuel Wells, eds. The Blackwell Companion to Christian Ethics (Malden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004): 36. 276 Samuel Wells, ed., Christian Ethics: An Introductory Reader (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 155 ff; 166.

118

Orthodox Christianity at the University of Virginia. Guroian has called attention to the sometimes overlooked role that the ecclesial community plays in informing the process of biblical interpretation, which in turn informs or guides ethical reflection.277 Guroian cited

Christian ethicist Paul Lehmann as someone who has urged “Christian ethicists [to] be serious about ecclesiology. For it is in the Eucharistic community, he insisted, that the gap between the New Testament church and all subsequent Christian existence is bridged, in which the tension between New Testament ethics and Christian ethics is worked out.”278 In addition to Hauerwas, Guroian also suggested Yoder and James

William McClendon as theologians who have given the church a central place in their discussion of Christian ethics. Their interest is in the “corporate” nature of discernment and the embodiment, or practice, of Christian ethics in the life of the church. Guroian specifically posits what he terms “a communal hermeneutic.279 Yoder also employed the term “communal hermeneutic,” 280 although his use was grounded in church polity, where

Guroian’s is grounded in liturgical worship. Yoder’s extensive attention to the deliberative task of Christian congregations offers a counterpoint to Guroian from an

277 “In recent years there has been an intensified interest in the relation between the Bible and ethics. Too often in such inquiry the ecclesial and liturgical contexts in which believing communities interpret and apply the biblical texts and through which the Bible forms Christian identity have been overlooked…” Vigen Guroian, “Bible and Ethics: An Ecclesial and Liturgical Interpretation,” Journal of Religious Ethics 18, no. 1 (March 1990): 129. 278 Guroian, 130-1. He also cites Thomas W. Ogletree’s The Use of the Bible in Christian Ethics (1983) as a text that “takes the significant step of pointing toward the ecclesial setting of the Bible as a key to answering the question of how the Bible continues to lay claim to being normative for Christian ethics.” 279 Guroian, 131ff. He opens up this discussion by accentuating the link between word and sacrament in Alexander Schmemann’s The Eucharist (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1988) and, in a qualified way, in the work of Wayne A Meeks, notably “Hermeneutics of Social Embodiment,” Harvard Theological Review 79, nos. 1-3 (1986): 177-186. He concludes his essay with a summary reference to Geoffrey Wainwright’s statement that liturgy “is the locus in which the story of the constitutive events [of Christian existence] is retold in order to elicit an appropriate response in worship and ethics to the God who remains faithful to the purposes which his earlier acts declare.” From Wainwright, Doxology: The Praise of God in Worship, Doctrine and Life: A Systematic Theology, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), 153. 280 Yoder, 52.

119

Anabaptist and Mennonite perspective that, while non-sacramental, takes seriously the congregational setting of hermeneutics and its role in moral reasoning within the church.

Yoder outlined an approach to moral reasoning within congregations that emphasized the role of dialogue, spiritual gifts, and faith with the process of discernment in the church.281

He specifically identified “practical moral reasoning” as one of the gifts of God to the church and, as such, as one of its marks.282 However, Yoder observed that “[m]ost discussions of practical moral reasoning do not ask whether the intention of those doing the reasoning is to reconcile.” Nor do they set the task of moral reasoning in the context

“of a conversation between persons who differ on the issues” or in the context of a congregation that will have to “ratify either the reconciliation or the impossibility of reconciliation.283

5. Paul and “Strife”

Schnabel argued that “the issue of why and how Christians should overcome discord and obtain peace” was a “comprehensive” concern for the apostle Paul, as shown in his letters to nascent churches in Galatia and Corinth, and constituted a “basic ethical problem” with implications for “ecclesiological questions” and for “the praxis of church life.”284 Paul’s handling of situations of Christian dispute will help shape a biblical framework for assessing Burroughs’ proposal. Paul’s letters address the gamut of problems arising from principled disagreement within church fellowships.

281 John Howard Yoder, “The Hermeneutics of Peoplehood: A Protestant Perspective on Practical Moral Reasoning” The Journal of Religious Ethics 10, no. 1 (Spring 1982): 40. 282 Yoder, Peoplehood, 54. 283 Yoder, Peoplehood, 50. 284 Schnabel, 269-70.

120

The way Paul might have developed his ethical teaching on this theme of strife, as outlined by Schnabel, is of interest, because of the communal nature of the subject.

Schnabel asserted that in 1 Cor 8:7-12 and 10:25-29285 “Paul refers to the conscience as criterion for the proper ethical decision.”286 In the first of these passages, Paul instructed

Christians with “knowledge” to set it aside for the sake of charity. In the second passage,

Paul weighed the claims of one’s own conscience with the claims of another. Paul’s teaching on communal matters offers a way of distinguishing “ecclesial” ethics from moral decisions that rest solely with the agency of the individual. This is an inherently difficult concept for Christians groomed in a modern, western democracy, because it transgresses individually determined moral boundaries.

In Paul’s reading of conflict situations, “strong” Christians with a correct conscience should still yield to the erroneous conscience of their fellow Christians, to preclude them from following the behavior of the “strong” against their own better judgement. Paul reckoned it to be sin to “defile” your own conscience and to act without faith. For the strong, for whom the origin of the food in question really was indifferent, they did no sin by forbearing the scruples of others with whom they disagreed.

David Kuck, who teaches at the United Theological College of the West Indies in

Kingston, studied Paul’s response to community conflict in his first letter to the

Corinthians. Kuck suggested that from “Paul’s view, the Corinthian penchant for scrutinizing one another violates the special relationship of call and accountability

285 A fuller meaning is conveyed in the expanded passage of 1 Cor 10:23-33. 286 Schnabel, 288.

121

between the individual and the Lord.”287 Paul had to teach communities in conflict how to balance the claims of their own conscience with the claims of others. According to

Kuck, “Paul takes it as axiomatic that a primary consideration is the freedom of one’s own conscience, that is, one’s individual responsibility to God. At the same time, this freedom must be balanced by care not to violate the same individual freedom of another

Christian.” Kuck also perceived another line of reasoning in Paul that is evident also in

Burroughs – an orientation towards, or expectance of, “eschatological disclosure,” when the “hidden things” and “purposes of the heart” will be made known (1 Cor 4:1-5). This waiting on the Lord constrains judgement and should guide discernment in the Christian fellowship on disputable matters.

Christian ethics informed by any reading of Paul’s letters are ecclesial in nature, in as much as the right course of action in disputed cases is discerned by holding together various dynamics in the assembly (ecclesia). Classic dynamics in Paul’s writing are the relation between the “weak” and the “strong”; between being “set free” from the hold of sin and being bonded to Christ as a slave; and between the claims of one’s own conscience and the claims of other people’s consciences. The foundation for any such deliberation – whether delegated to officers of the church or carried out directly by the congregation – is the Christian obligation to assume such responsibility as part of the ministry given to the church by Jesus. One example of this obligation is in the “binding and loosing” injunction recorded in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18.288 Paul’s exhortation in 1

287 205-8. 288 Yoder treats this concept and its relation to ministry and church order in “The Hermeneutics of Peoplehood,” (op. cit.) 50ff. See also Mark Allan Powell, “Binding and Loosing: A Paradigm for Ethical Discernment from the Gospel of Matthew,” Currents in Theology and Mission 30 (2003): 438-45.

122

Corinthians 1:10 provides another example: “Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgement.”

This exhortation by Paul is carried through in Burroughs’ proposal, which bears many characteristics with the way the apostle reasoned about conflicts arising in the church.

Burroughs’ biographer, Simpson, suggested his subject “planted a seed in the thinking of some members of the [Westminster Assembly] that it is possible to endorse a form of church government yet allow for some measure of tolerance for those scripturally convinced of a Congregational model.”289 Scholars have widely recognized that Paul made such allowances in cases of church disputes, specifically on matters of policy and practice that contemporary readers have interpreted as adiaphora. Categorizing something as adiaphora, however, does not remove the need for discernment or further ethical discrimination. As Käsemann maintained in his reading of Paul’s letter to the

Romans, it just helps define and focus the issues at hand. The following section addresses this point by references to contested issues in the church today.

289 Simpson, 232.

123

6. Adiaphora and Discernment

While recognizing the methodological difficulties in bringing an historical perspective to bear on contemporary issues, this section will endeavour to draw parallels with current divisions being faced in the church over the question of same-sex blessings and marriage.

The obscure concept of adiaphora has regained currency in recent debates in Anglican and Lutheran churches, where it has been pressed into service as both traditions respond to the momentum inside and outside their congregations in such matters as ordaining homosexual ministers, offering a liturgical blessing for same-sex couples, and marrying same-sex couples. Of the many theological reports and papers issued in both traditions, the Windsor Report from the Lambeth Commission on Communion in 2004 is of particular note, because it underscored the close connection between issues of authority and the process of discerning those issues on which Christians might agree to disagree without severing unity.290 It affirmed the principle that the clearer it is to all that a matter is adiaphora, the more appropriate it is for local congregations to decide such a matter for themselves (the principle of subsidiarity). The report stated the principle this way:

“Subsidiarity and adiaphora belong together: the more something is regarded as

‘indifferent’, the more locally the decision can be made.” Conversely, it affirmed that matters of so-called “core doctrine” cannot be changed at the local level and that they require unanimity, or something close to it, at the broadest possible level of communion.

Owing to the nature of Anglican church polity, the report also addressed the matters of diversity within the Anglican communion and the exercise and meaning of “autonomy”

290 The Lambeth Commission on Communion, The Windsor Report (London, UK: The Anglican Communion Office/The Anglican Consultative Council, 2004), 21-22; 38-40.

124

in the context of Anglican unity.291 That concept of autonomy has some practical affinity with the idea of accommodating forms of congregational autonomy, as advanced by

Burroughs and the Dissenting Brethren. The distinction is that in Anglican church doctrine, such autonomy is “acquired or derived, not inherent,” whereas in the

Congregationalist doctrine of the church advanced by the English Independents in

Burroughs’ day, the grounds for accommodation by the Presbyterian majority rested in the inherent authority of a congregation. Despite this distinction, reading the Windsor

Report’s discussion of adiaphora, authority and autonomy alongside Burroughs’

Irenicum and Paul’s letters reveals common concerns at play.

I have drawn attention to this relationship between church polity and adiaphora, because

I believe the congregational task of resolving such principled disagreements, and how, and with what resources, has been overlooked in church debates and in scholarship. Very little attention has been paid to this topic in Christian ethics, although my literature reviews for this study did not extend to the discipline of practical theology. In my own experience within the Anglican Church in Canada, while debates have proceeded on the contentious matters of blessing and marrying same-sex couples, many “people in the pews” have been left unprepared to shoulder the significant obligation to discern “what makes for peace and for mutual edification” (Rom 14:19). This is no easy task. Whether a

291 Windsor Report, 34-38. The following explanation is given on page 35 in point 75: “The word ‘autonomy’ represents within Anglican discourse a far more limited form of independent government than is popularly understood by many today. Literally, ‘autonomous’ means ‘having one’s own laws’ (auto - self, nomos - law), and the autonomy of a body or institution means “[t]he right of self-government, of making its own laws and administering its own affairs”. In the secular world it is well settled that autonomic’ laws are those created by a body or persons within the community on which has been conferred subordinate and restricted legislative power. Autonomy, therefore, is not the same thing as sovereignty or independence; it more closely resembles the orthodox polity of ‘autocephaly’, which denotes autonomy in communion.” Point 76 sums up the key point: “The key idea is autonomy-in- communion, that is, freedom held within interdependence.”

125

thorny issue is given over to the discretion of local congregations, or to synods or councils or presbyteries or conferences, each assembly needs the skills to reason together, to interpret scripture together, and to bring out treasures new and old, like the “scribe” in

Matthew’s gospel, so as to guide and contribute to the process of congregational discernment. Some of the key ingredients in the “shared discerning process” are described in Yoder’s helpful study.292

The perspective of Yoder, writing as an ethicist and theologian in the Mennonite tradition, is well-placed to provide a contemporary bookend to the Congregationalist perspective of Burroughs, for two reasons. Both emphasised the congregation’s responsibility for moral discernment and discipline; both were inclined towards peace.

Like Aquinas, Yoder identified “practical moral reasoning” as one of the gifts of God to the church and, as such, as one of its marks.293 These gifts for the church include prophecy, teaching, interpretation, and administration to promote order, equity and participation in the life of the church.294 In a biblical context, Yoder compared “practical moral reasoning” with the practice of “binding and loosing” highlighted in Matthew’s gospel.295 Mark Allan Powell, New Testament professor at Trinity Lutheran Seminary, has also treated the practice of binding and loosing in detail.296 He suggested that for

Matthew, “loosing the law never meant dismissing scripture or countering its authority.

The law was never wrong when it was rightly interpreted. The issue, rather, was

292 Yoder, Peoplehood, 56-57. 293 Yoder, Peoplehood, 54. 294 Yoder, Peoplehood, 52-56. 295 Yoder, Peoplehood, 49. 296 Powell, “Binding and Loosing,” 438-45.

126

discernment of the law’s intent and of the sphere of its application.”297 Powell also noted that “if Matthew’s Gospel contains warnings about the potential abuse of ‘loosing’ the law, it likewise warns against abuses involved in not doing so. One of Jesus’ primary accusations against the scribes and Pharisees is that they ‘bind heavy burdens that are difficult to bear’ on the shoulders of those who listen to their teaching (23:4).”298

It is precisely those contested church matters that are designated adiaphora that demand ethical discrimination. Naming something adiaphora in the church often marks the beginning of a controversy and the need for discernment. In his Irenicum, Burroughs invites us to return to the scriptures to discern from an ecclesial point of view how to settle contentious matters in a way that glorifies God and edifies His church and opens the way for peace; it is for this end that God has endowed His church with the gifts to discern between what is worse, better and excellent in disputed matters.

297 Powell, 439. 298 Powell, 441.

127

CONCLUSION

The claim of this thesis is that Jeremiah Burroughs’ Irenicum advances a concept of peaceful accommodation within the church, using principles that are harmonious with the teaching of Paul. Paul’s manner of making accommodations in church practices or polices, for the sake of conscience or mission, provides a warrant for considering and developing Burroughs’ proposal that yielding in contested matters can be a positive practice towards peace and unity in the church.

It is suggested that Burroughs’ “peace proposal” makes a constructive contribution to an

“ecclesial ethics” by providing a scriptural framework for thinking about the nature of church conflict and by presenting theological principles for dealing with disputes.

Burroughs’ richest contribution lies in his interpretation and development of the

“Apostolic Rules” he finds in the Pauline epistles, such as in Philippians 3:15-16 and

Romans 15:2. The ensuing principles he develops include respecting conscientious convictions, by letting some irreconcilable differences stand without bending people against their will; maintaining fellowship despite the existence of such differences; and yielding “so far as reason and conscience will give way” for the sake of charity and peace. Burroughs also provides regulating principles to help discern when it is good, or not, to yield to the convictions of others. Within Burroughs’ framework, justice, mercy, charity, and peace would all constitute good grounds for yielding in a matter of practice or observance that was “institutional” and provisional, yet he cautioned against making

128

concessions that would compromise “natural” duties owed to people and “natural” worship owed to God.

Yielding is neither pleasant nor fashionable, but Burroughs’ Irenicum challenges

Christians today to think seriously about what Paul meant when he wrote in his letter to the Romans: “…let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification.”299

Discerning what is “good” and “edifying” for other people, even in cases of dispute, shifts the criteria for ethical discrimination away from what is permissible, or a “thing indifferent,” to things that really matter in God’s sight. What is “good” for my neighbour and “will build up the common life”300 constitute two criteria for ethical discrimination.

Where no agreement is possible, mutual respect and agreement on what does matter affords a bridge for Christian fellowship across the dividing line.

Burroughs’ Irenicum also presents a distinctly Congregationalist view of the role congregations might play in responding to situations of conflict. There are many legal and extra-judicial tools for settling civil differences, reaching consensus or brokering compromise, including court rulings, arbitration and mediation. Churches have synods, councils and, increasingly, “intentional dialogue” and “listening circles.” The practices of civil society and the church may often be indistinguishable. Yet Burroughs supposed that fellowships of Christians were endowed with spiritual gifts for mutual edification and mission. Allowing irreconcilable differences to stand out of respect for conscience also leaves room for God’s grace to transform seemingly impossible situations.

299 Authorised/King James Version. 300 As the New English Bible casts this phrase.

129

In conclusion, Christians need the means to think scripturally and to reason together about the nature of their disputes. When relationships are strained within the church, doctrinal orthodoxy or biblical knowledge on their own will not win the day; such difficult circumstances call for the skills, or discernment, to weigh competing values or scriptural principles and to do so with clarity and charity. Burroughs’ Irenicum is essentially a pastoral guide to help congregations walk with each other when opinions are sharply divided. It offers congregations in our time a graceful, charitable and refreshing way of thinking about division and dispute in the church. In these lectures, he makes a critical re-appraisal of priorities, which diminishes the burden for any one Christian to be right in all cases – and to be seen to be right – and elevates the mutual burden for walking uprightly together, to build up the common life and glorify God.

As a study in historical theology, this thesis has made a contribution to a future, critical edition of Jeremiah Burroughs’ Irenicum. It has also contributed to the body of literature on conciliatory practices in church history and to literary criticism of irenic works – particularly in England during the First Civil War. As a study of Christian moral reasoning, this thesis has also offered a contribution to Christian ethical discourse, especially in a congregational setting. This study has also developed William Ames’ insights on the relationship between discernment and “things indifferent.” Ames was concerned with the moral significance of actions and dispositions. He understood

130

conscience to be the seat of discernment to direct actions in precisely those matters that are neither inherently good nor evil, but incline towards one or the other. This understanding of “things indifferent” reflects the Stoic distinction between “preferred” and “rejected” adiaphora and has some affinity with Flacius’ distinction between adiaphora and pseudadiaphora. This distinction is worth exploring further in the context of contemporary church debates in the Lutheran and Anglican churches, in which the concept of adiaphora has been employed. Critically, Burroughs’ “peace proposal” does not resolve the issue of who decides what is and is not adiaphora in church disputes; instead it transforms the question by asking when is it good, or not, to yield in a matter of contention. A study of Burroughs’ irenic theology in relation to his doctrinal and expository works would be warranted on the basis of this preliminary study, as would a detailed comparison of Burroughs’ irenic principles and practices with his peers and within the broader irenic tradition.

131

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. WORKS BY BURROUGHS CONSULTED IN THIS THESIS

Irenicum, to the lovers of truth and peace. Heart-divisions opened in the causes and evils of them: with cautions that we may not be hurt by them, and endeavours to heal them. London: Printed for Robert Dawlman, 1643, 1653.

Gospel Worship, Or, the Right Manner of Sanctifying the Name of God: In General, and Particularly in these 3 Great Ordinances: 1. Hearing the Word, 2. Receiving the Lord’s Supper, 3. Prayer. London: Printed by Peter Cole, 1648.

A vindication of Mr Burroughes, against Mr Edwards his foule aspersions, in his spreading Gangraena, and his angry Antiapologia. Concluding with a briefe declaration what the Independents would have. London: Printed for H. Overton, 1646.

Gospel reconciliation, or, Christ’s trumpet of peace to the world wherein is shewed (besides many other gospel truth) ... that there was a breach made between God and man ... to which is added two sermons. London: Printed by Peter Cole, 1657.

Gospel-conversation: wherein is shewed, how the conversation of believers must be above what could be by the light of nature, beyond those that lived under the law, and suitable to what truths the Gospel holds forth. / By Jeremiah Burroughs, preacher of the Gospel to Stepney and Criplegate, London. London: Printed for Peter Cole, 1648.

Jerusalem’s Glory breaking forth into the World, being a scripture-discovery of the New Testament Church in the latter days immediately before the Second Coming of Christ. [Three Sermons] London: Printed for Giles Calvert, 1675.

The saints happinesse. Together with the severall steps leading thereunto, delivered in divers lectures on the Beatitudes; being part of Christs Sermon in the Mount; contained in the fifth of Mathew. London: Printed by M.S. for Nathaniel and Thomas Parkhurst, 1660.

An Exposition of the Prophecy of Hosea. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2006. Reprinted from the 1863 edition, apparently edited by James Sherman and published in Edinburgh by James Nichol. This collected volume was consulted for convenience. The first 13 of Burroughs’ lectures on Hosea were published in four series, from 1643 to 1650. The series was not finished when he died and it was completed by colleagues Thomas Hall and Edward Reynolds.

132

2. HISTORICAL CONTEXT

A. Primary Sources

1) BURROUGHS AS CO-AUTHOR

An apologeticall narration, humbly submitted to the Honourable Houses of Parliament. By Tho: Goodwin, Philip Nye, Sidrach Simpson, Jer: Burroughes, William Bridge. London: Printed for Robert Dawlman, 1643.

A Copy of a remonstrance lately delivered in to the assembly by Thomas Goodwin, Ierem. Burroughs, William Greenhill, William Bridge, Philip Nie, Sidrach Simson, and William Carter declaring the grounds and reasons of their declining to bring into the assembly their modell of church-government. London, 1645.

2) OTHER

Ames, William. Marrow of Theology. Translated by John Dykstra Eusden. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997.

______. Conscience with the Power and Cases Thereof. Amsterdam, 1639. The English Experience 708. Amsterdam: Theatrum Orbis Terrarrum; Norwood, NJ: Walter J. Johnson, 1975.

______. Guilielmi Amesii De conscientia et ejus jure, vel casibus libri quinque. 1659.

Anonymous. The ancient bounds, or Liberty of conscience tenderly stated, modestly asserted, and mildly vindicated. London, 1645.

Busher, Leonard. Religions peace or A reconciliation, between princes & peoples, & nations (by Leonard Busher: of the county of Gloucester, of the towne of Wotton, and a citticen, of the famous and most honorable citty London, and of the second right worshipfull Company) supplicated (vnto the hygh and mighty King of great Brittayne: etc: and to the princely and right Honorable Parliament) with all loyalty, humility and carefull fidelity. Amsterdam, 1614; London: Printed for John Sweeting, 1646.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Vol. 1, Book II. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Grand Rapids, MI: William. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964.

Church of England. Sermons or Homilies Appointed to Be Read in Churches in the Time of Queen Elizabeth of Famous Memory. London: C. & J. Rivington, 1825.

133

Cook, John. What the Independents would have, or, A character, declaring some of their tenents, and their desires to disabuse those who speak ill of that they know not. / Written by John Cook of Grays Inne Barrister. London: Printed for Giles Calvert, 1647.

Davenant, John. An exhortation to the restoring of brotherly communion betwixt the Protestant churches founded in this, that they do not differ in any fundamentall article of the Catholique faith. London: Printed by R.B. for Richard Badger and John Williams, 1641.

Dury, John. Motives to induce the Protestant princes to mind the vvorke of peace ecclesiasticall amongst themselves/An information concerning the means of peace ecclesiastical. Amsterdam: Richt Right Press, 1639; London: Printed for William Hope, 1641.

Edwards, Thomas. Antapologia, or, A full answer to the Apologeticall narration of Mr Goodwin, Mr Nye, Mr Sympson, Mr Burroughs, Mr Bridge, members of the Assembly of Divines wherein is handled many of the controversies of these times... by Thomas Edwards. London: Printed by G.M. for John Bellamie, 1644.

Erasmus, Desiderius. Opus Epistolarum Des. Erasmii Roterodami. Edited by P.S. Allen and H.M. Allen. 5 volumes. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924.

Forbes, John. Irenicum amatoribus veritatis et pacis in Ecclesia Scoticana. Prece & studio Ioannis Forbesii, ss. Theologiae Doctoris, & ejusdem professoris in Academia Aberdoniensi, Aberdoniae: Excudebat Eduardus Rabanus. Cum privilegio. Aberdeen, 1629.

______. The First Book of the Irenicum of John Forbes of Corse: A Contribution to the Theology of Re-union. Translated and edited with introduction, notes and appendices, by Edward Gordon Selwyn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1823.

Hall, Joseph. “Christian Moderation: In Two Books.” Book II: Of Moderation in Matter of Judgement.” In The Works of Joseph Hall, D.D., successively Bishop of Exeter and Norwich: With Some Account of His Life and Sufferings, written by Himself. Volume 6 of 12. Revised edition. Oxford: D.A. Talboys, 1837.

Helwys, Thomas. A shorte declaration of the mistery of iniquity. Spitalfields, England, 1612.

Pareus, David. Irenicum sive de unione et Synodo Evangelicorum Concilianda liber votivus paci ecclesiae & desideriis pacificorum dicatus. Rosaeus, 1614.

134

______. Admonitio Christiana, De Irenico sive Libro Votivo: Quem David Pareus ... de Vnione , Synodo Et Syncretismo, inter Evangelicos, hoc est, Lutheranos & Calvinianos, constituendo, superiore Anno 1614 evulgavit. Tubingen, 1616.

Pomerius, Julianus. The Contemplative Life. Translated and annotated by Josephine Suelzer. Ancient Christian Writers, vol. 4. Westminster, MD: The Newman Bookshop, 1947.

The Book of Concord. http://bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php, accessed April 1, 2012.

Confessions of Faith and other Public Documents Illustrative of the History of the Baptist Churches of England in the Seventeenth Century. Edited for the Hanserd Knollys Society by Edward Bean Underhill. London: Haddon Brothers & Co., 1854.

A Declaration of the Faith and Order Owned and Practiced in the Congregational Churches in England; Agreed Upon and Consented Unto by their Elders and Messengers in their Meeting at The Savoy, Octob. 12, 1658. London, 1959.

The First London Baptist Confession on Faith, 1644, 1646. The Reformed Reader. http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/1646lbc.htm, accessed Dec 4, 2013.

The Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly, 1643-1652. Edited by Chad Van Dixhoorn; consultant editor, David F. Wright. 5 volumes. Oxford University Press, 2012.

The [Westminster] Confession of Faith; the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, with the Scripture-Proofs at Large: Together with The Sum of Saving Knowledge, etc. Belfast: Graham and Heslip, Ltd., 1933.

United Kingdom. “June 1643: An Ordinance for the calling of an Assembly of Learned and Godly Divines, to be consulted with by the Parliament, for the setling of the Government of the Church”, Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642-1660 (1911), pp. 180-184. URL: http://www.british- history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=55828&strquery=jeremiah burroughs Date accessed: 13 February 2014.

United Kingdom. House of Commons Journal, vol. 3:13, September 13, 1644, Journal of the House of Commons: volume 3: 1643-1644 (1802), pp. 625-627. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=2774&strquery=tender, accessed February 13, 2014.

United Kingdom. “Stepney.” The Environs of London: volume 3: County of Middlesex (1795), pp. 418-488. URL: http://www.british- history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=45447&strquery=jeremiah burroughs, accessed February 13, 2014.

135

B. Secondary Sources

Acheson, R. J. Radical Puritans in England: 1550-1660. London; New York: Longman, 1989.

Ball, Bryan W. A Great Expectation: Eschatological Thought in English Protestantism to 1660. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1975.

Beeke, Joel R. and Randall J. Pederson. Meet the Puritans. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2006.

Beeke, Joel R. and Mark Jones. A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012.

Brackney, William H. A Genetic History of Baptist Thought: With Special Reference to Baptists in Britain and North America. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2004.

______. Theological Literature of the Early English Baptists 1609-1660: Bibliotheca Dissidentium-Repertoire des nonconformists religious des seizieme et dix-setiene siecles, Tome 30 (Baden-Baden: Valentin Koerner Editions, 2014), 27-29. [forthcoming]

Brachlow, Stephen. The Communion of Saints: Radical Puritan and Separatist Ecclesiology 1570-1625. Oxford Theological Religion Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.

Bradley, Rosemary D. “The Failure of Accommodation: Religious Conflicts Between Presbyterians and Independents in the Westminster Assembly 1643-1646.” Journal of Religious History 12 (1982): 23-47.

Bremer, Francis J. Congregational Communion: Clerical Friendship in the Anglo- American Puritan Community, 1610-1692. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1994.

Bruce, F.F. The English Bible: A History of Translations. London: Lutterworth Press, 1961.

Carruthers, S. W. The Everyday Work of the Westminster Assembly. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Historical Society, 1943.

Christianson, Paul. Reformers and Babylon: English Apocalyptic Visions from the Reformation to the Eve of the Civil War. Toronto; Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1978.

136

Clancy, Thomas H. “Ecumenism and Irenics in 17th-Century English Catholic Apologetics.” Theological Studies 58 (1997): 85-89.

Coffey, John. Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England, 1558-1689. Harlow, England: Longman, 2000.

______. “Puritanism and Liberty Revisited: The Case for Toleration in the English Revolution.” The Historical Journal 41, no. 4 (Dec 1998): 961-985.

Collinson, Patrick. The Elizabethan Puritan Movement. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967, 1990.

Cook, Sara G. “Congregational Independents and the Cromwellian Constitutions.” Church History 46, no. 3 (Sept 1977): 335-357.

Cooke, Gordon. “The Doctrine of Adoption and the Preaching of Jeremiah Burroughs.” In Eternal Light, Adoption and Livingstone. Congregational Studies Conference Papers. Beverley, East Yorkshire: Evangelical Fellowship of Congregational Churches, 1998.

Coolidge, John S. The Pauline Renaissance in England: Puritanism and the Bible. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970.

Commission internationale d’histoire ecclésiastique comparée. Colloquium, University of Durham, 1981. The End of Strife: Papers Selected from the Proceedings of the Colloquium of the commission internationale d’histoire ecclésiastique comparée held at University of Durham 2 to 9 September, 1981. Edited by David Loades on behalf of the British Sub-Commission of C.I.H.E.C. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1984.

Davies, Horton. The Worship of the English Puritans. Westminster: Dacre Press, 1948.

______. The English Free Churches. London; Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1952.

______. Worship and Theology in England: From Cranmer to Baxter and Fox, 1534- 1690. Vol 1 of 4. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1996.

______. “The Lord’s Supper in the Congregational Christian Tradition.” Prism 1, no. 2 (Sept 1986): 28-36.

Davis, J. C. “Religion and the Struggle for Freedom in the English Revolution.” The Historical Journal 35, no. 3 (Sep 1992): 507-530.

Davies, Julian. The Caroline Captivity of the Church: Charles I and the Remoulding of Anglicanism, 1625-1641. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992.

137

de Greef, Wulfert. The Writings of John Calvin: An Introductory Guide, Expanded Edition. Translated by Lyle D. Bierma. Westminster John Knox Press, 2008.

Fienberg, Stanley P. “Thomas Goodwin’s Scriptural Hermeneutics and the Dissolution of Puritan Unity. Journal of Religious History 10, no.1 (1978): 32–49.

Ford, John D. “The Lawful Bonds of Scottish Society: The Five Articles of Perth, The Negative Confession and the National Covenant.” The Historical Journal 37, no. 1 (Mar 1994): 45-64.

Friedrich, Markus. “Orthodoxy and Variation: The Role of Adiaphorism in Early Modern Protestantism.” In Orthodoxies and Heterodoxies in Early Modern German Culture: Order and Creativity 1550-1750, edited by Randolph Head and Daniel Christensen, 45-68. Leiden: Brill 2007.

George, Timothy. “Between Pacifism and Coercion: The English Baptist Doctrine of Religious Toleration.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 58, no. 1 (Jan 1984): 30-49.

Greaves, Richard L. “The Puritan-Nonconformist Tradition in England, 1560-1700: Historiographical Reflections.” Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies 17, no. 4 (Winter 1985): 449-486.

Greene, Robert A. “Whichcote, the Candle of the Lord, and Synderesis.” Journal of the History of Ideas 52, no. 4 (Oct - Dec 1991): 617-644.

Gribben, Crawford. “The Church of Scotland and the English Apocalyptic Imagination, 1630 to 1650.” The Scottish Historical Review 88, no. 1 (Apr 2009): 34-56.

Ha, Polly. English Presbyterianism, 1590-1640. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2011.

Haller, William. Tracts on Liberty in the Puritan Revolution, 1638-1647. New York: Columbia University Press, 1934.

Haykin, Michael A.G., and Mark Jones. Drawn Into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011.

Hill, Christopher. Puritanism and Revolution. London: Panther Books, 1958, 1968.

______. The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas During the English Revolution. London: Penguin, 1975.

______. The English Bible and the Seventeenth-Century Revolution. London: Allen Lane/Penguin, 1993.

138

Hirst, Derek. Authority and Conflict: England, 1603-1658. The New History of England. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986.

Hotson, Howard. “Irenicism in the Confessional Age.” In Conciliation and Confession: The Struggle for Unity in the Age of Reform, 1415-1648, edited by Howard P. Louthan and Randall C. Zachman, 228-285. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004.

Hudson, Winthrop S. “The Scottish Effort to Presbyterianize the Church of England During the Early months of the Long Parliament.” Church History 8, no. 3 (Summer 1939): 255-282.

______. “Denominationalism as a Basis for Ecumenicity: A Seventeenth Century Conception.” Church History 24, no. 1 (March 1955): 32-50.

Hughes, Philip. The Reformation in England. Volume 2. Religio Depopulata. London: Hollis and Carter, 1954.

______. Theology of the English Reformers. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1965, 1980.

Jones, Mark. Why Heaven Kissed Earth: The Christology of the Puritan Reformed Orthodox Theologian, Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010.

Jordan, Wilbur Kitchener. The Development of Religious Toleration in England. 4 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932-1940.

Kelly, Kevin T. Conscience: Dictator or Guide? A Study in Seventeenth-Century English Moral Theology. London and Others: Geoffrey Chapman, 1967.

Kendall, R. T. Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979.

Kiefer, Barbara. “The Authorship of Ancient Bounds.” Church History 22, no. 3 (Sept 1953): 192-196.

King, Peter. “The Episcopate During the Civil Wars, 1642-1649.” The English Historical Review 83, no. 328 (Jul 1968): 523-537.

Kinloch, T. F. The Life and Works of Joseph Hall: 1574-1656. London: Staples Press, 1951.

139

Kirby, W. J. Torrance. “‘Relics of the Amorites’ or ‘things indifferent’? Peter Martyr Vermigli’s Authority and the Threat of Schism in the Elizabethan Vestinarian Controversy.” Reformation & Renaissance Review 6, no. 3 (Dec 2004): 313-326.

Lake, Peter. “The Moderate and Irenic Case for Religious War: Joseph Hall’s Via Media in Context.” In Political Culture and Cultural Politics in Early Modern England: Essays Presented to David Underdown, edited by Susan D. Amussen and Mark A. Kishlansky, 55-83. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1995.

Lake, Peter and David Como. “‘Orthodoxy’ and Its Discontents: Dispute Settlement and the Production of ‘Consensus’ in the London (Puritan) ‘Underground.” Journal of British Studies 39, no. 1, Anglo-American Puritanisms (Jan 2000): 34-70.

Letham, Robert. The Westminster Assembly: Reading its Theology in Historical Context. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2009.

Lim, Paul Chang-Ha. In Pursuit of Purity, Unity, and Liberty: Richard Baxter’s Puritan Ecclesiology in its Seventeenth-Century Context. Leiden; Boston: E.J. Brill, 2004.

______. “The Trinity, Adiaphora, Ecclesiology, and Reformation: John Owen’s Theory of Religious Toleration in Context.” Westminster Theological Journal 67, no. 2 (Sept 2005): 281-300.

Lugioyo, Brian. Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification: Reformation Theology and Early Modern Irenicism. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Louthan, Howard P. and Randall C. Zachman. Conciliation and Confession: The Struggle for Unity in the Age of Reform, 1415-1648. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004.

McAdoo, Henry, R. The Structure of Caroline Moral Theology. London, New York: Longmans, Green, 1949.

McGee, J. Sears. “The Triumph of the Saints.” Book Review. Church History 48, no. 2 (June 1979): 213-214.

McKim, Donald K. Ramism in William Perkins’ Theology. American University Studies, Series VII: Theology and Religion, 15. New York, Bern, Frankfurt am Main, and Paris: Peter Lang, 1987.

______. “The Functions of Ramism in William Perkins’ Theology.” The Sixteenth Century Journal 16, no. 4 (Winter 1985): 503-517.

Maclear, James Fulton. “The Birth of the Free Church Tradition.” Church History 26, no. 2 (June, 1957): 99-131.

140

Marshall, Paul. “William Perkins, A Ramist Theologian?” The Baptist Review of Theology 7, no. 1-2 (Spring-Fall 1997): 49-68.

Mayor, Stephen. The Lord’s Supper in Early English Dissent. London: Epworth Press, 1972.

Meyjes, G.H.M. Posthumus. “Protestant Irenicism in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries.” In Commission internationale d’histoire ecclésiastique comparée. Colloquium, University of Durham, 1981. The End of Strife : Papers Selected from the Proceedings of the Colloquium of the commission internationale d’histoire ecclésiastique comparée held at University of Durham 2 to 9 September, 1981. Edited by David Loades on behalf of the British Sub- Commission of C.I.H.E.C., 77-93. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1984.

Milton, Anthony. “‘The unchanged peacemaker’? John Dury and the Politics of Irenicism in England.” In Samuel Hartlib and Universal Reformation: Studies in Intellectual Communication, edited by Mark Greengrass, Michel Leslie and Timothy Raylor, 95-117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Moore, Susan Hardman. “Puritan Asceticism and the Type of Sacrifice.” Studies in Church History 22 (1985): 285-97.

______. “Sacrifice in Puritan Typology.” In Sacrifice and Redemption, edited by S.W. Sykes, 182-202. Cambridge University Press, 1991.

______. “For the Mind’s Eye Only: Puritans, Images and ‘the golden mines of Scripture’.” Scottish Journal of Theology 59, no. 3 (Jan 2006): 281-296.

Morrill, John. “The Church in England 1642-9.” In Reactions to the English Civil War 1642-1649, edited by John Morrill, 89-114. New York: Saint Martin’s Press, 1983.

Michael, Brydon. The Evolving Reputation of Richard Hooker: An Examination of Responses, 1600–1714 (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 2006.

Murray, Iain Hamish. The Reformation of the Church: A Collection of Reformed and Puritan Documents on Church Issues. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1965.

Nicolson, Adam. God’s Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible. New York: HarperCollins, 2003.

Nuttall, Geoffrey F. The Holy Spirit in Puritan Faith and Experience. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1946.

141

______. Visible Saints: The Congregational Way, 1640-1660. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1957.

Paul, R. S. The Assembly of the Lord: Politics and Religion in the Westminster Assembly and the “Grand Debate”. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1985.

______. “Worship and Discipline: Context of Independent Church Order in the Westminster Assembly.” In The Divine Drama in History and Liturgy, edited by J. Booty, 149-162. Allison Park, PA: Pickwick Publications, 1984.

Pears, Thomas C. Jr. “Foreword.” In The Everyday Work of the Westminster Assembly, by S. W. Carruthers, v-vii. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Historical Society, 1943.

Pearson, Samuel C. Jr. “Reluctant Radicals: The Independents at the Westminster Assembly.” Journal of Church and State 11, no. 3 (1969): 473-486.

Pope, Robert and D. Densil Morgan, eds. T & T Clark Companion to Nonconformity. London: Bloomsbury, 2013.

Prior, Charles W. A. A Confusion of Tongues: Britain’s Wars of Reformation, 1625– 1642. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Russell, Conrad. “Arguments for Religious Unity in England 1530-1650.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 18 (1967): 201-226.

Safley, Thomas Max, ed. A Companion to Multiconfessionalism in the Early Modern World. Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011.

Sears McGee, J. “Conversion and the Imitation of Christ in Anglican and Puritan Writing.” Journal of British Studies 15, no. 2 (Spring 1976): 21-39.

______. “Francis Rous and ‘Scabby or Itchy Children’: The Problem of Toleration in 1645.” Huntington Library Quarterly 67, no. 3 (Sep 2004): 401-422.

Seaton, Alexander Adam. The Theory of Toleration under the Later Stuarts. New York: Octagon Books, 1972.

Seaver, Paul S. The Puritan Lectureships: The Politics of Religious Dissent, 1560-1562. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1970.

Sgarbi, Marco. The Aristotelian Tradition and the Rise of British Empiricism: Logic and Epistemology in the British Isles (1570-1689). Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 32. Dordrecht: Springer, 2103.

142

Shipps, Kenneth. “The ‘Political Puritan’.” Church History. Studies in Christianity and Culture 45 (1976): 196-205.

Simpson, Phillip L. A Life of Gospel Peace: A Biography of Jeremiah Burroughs. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011.

Spalding, James C. and Maynard F. Brass. “The Reduction of Episcopacy as a Means of Unity in England, 1640-1662.” Church History 30 (1961): 414-432.

Sprunger, Keith L. The Learned Doctor William Ames: Dutch Backgrounds of English and American Puritanism. Chicago: University of Illinois, Press, 1972.

______. Dutch Puritanism: A History of English and Scottish Churches of the Netherlands in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1982.

______. “Ames, Ramus, and the Method of Puritan Theology.” Harvard Theological Review 59, no. 2 (April 1966): 133-151.

Spurr, John. English Puritanism, 1603-1689. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998.

Stearns, Raymond Phineas. Congregationalism in the Dutch Netherlands: The Rise and Fall of the English Congregational Classis, 1621-1635. Studies in Church History, IV. Chicago: The American Society of Church History, 1940.

Steere, Dan. “For the Peace of Both, for the Humour of Neither”: Bishop Joseph Hall Defends the Via Media in an Age of Extremes, 1601-1656.” The Sixteenth Century Journal 27, no. 3 (Autumn 1996): 749-765.

Tolmie, Murray. The Triumph of the Saints: The Separate Churches of London, 1616- 1649. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977.

Tourney, Leonard D. Joseph Hall. Twaayne’s English Authors Series. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1979.

Tudur Jones, R. “Union with Christ: The Existential Nerve of Puritan Piety.” Tyndale Bulletin 41, no. 2 (Nov 1990): 186-208.

Van Dixhoorn, C. B. “Unity and Diversity at the Westminster Assembly (1643-1649): A Commemorative Essay.” Journal of Presbyterian History 79, no. 2 (2001): 103- 17.

Verkamp, Bernard J. The Indifferent Mean: Adiaphorism in the English Reformation to 1554. Athens, Ohio and Detroit, MI: Ohio University Press and Wayne State University Press, 1977.

143

______. “Zwinglians and Adiaphorism.” Church History 42, no. 4 (Dec 1, 1973): 486- 504.

______. “Limits upon Adiaphoristic Freedom: Luther and Melanchthon.” Theological Studies 36, no. 1 (March 1, 1975): 52-76.

Yule, George. The Independents in the English Civil War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958.

______. Puritans in Politics: The Religious Legislation of the Long Parliament 1640- 1647. Appleford, Oxfordshire: Sutton Courtenay Press, 1981.

______. “English Presbyterianism and the Westminster Assembly.” The Reformed Theological Review 33 (May-August 1974): 33-44.

3. EXEGESIS AND HERMENEUTICS

Battles, Ford Lewis. “God was Accommodating Himself to Human Capacity.” Interpretation 31, no. 1 (Jan 1977): 19-38.

Benin, Stephen D. The Footprints of God: Divine Accommodation in Jewish and Christian Thought. SUNY Series in Judaica: Hermeneutics, Mysticism, and Religion. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993.

Bond, Lee S. “Renewing the Mind: The Role of Cognition Language in Pauline Theology and Ethics.” Tyndale Bulletin 58, no. 2 (Jan 2007): 317-320. [dissertation summary]

Burrows, Mark S. and Paul Rorem, eds. Biblical Hermeneutics in Historical Perspective: Studies in Honor of Karlfried Froehlich on his Sixtieth Birthday. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1991.

Cheung, Alex T. Idol Food in Corinth: Jewish. Background and Pauline Legacy. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 176. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

Chouinard, Larry. “The Kingdom of God and the Pursuit of Justice in Matthew.” Restoration Quarterly 45, no. 4 (Jan 2003): 229-242.

Deming, Will. “Paul and Indifferent Things.” In Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook, edited by J. Paul Sampley, 384-403. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003.

144

______. Book Review. “‘Discerning What Counts: The Formation of the Adiaphora Topos in Paul’s Letters,” by James L. Jaquette.” Journal of Biblical Literature 115, no. 4 (Winter 1996): 758.

Glad, Clarence E. “Paul and Adaptability.” In Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook, edited by J. Paul Sampley, 17-41. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003.

Gooch, Paul W. Partial Knowledge: Philosophical Studies in Paul. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame Press, 1987.

______. “Authority and Justification in Theological Ethics: A Study in 1 Corinthians 7.” Journal of Religious Ethics 11, no. 1 (March 1, 1983): 62-74.

Jaquette, James L. Discerning What Counts: The Formation of the Adiaphora Topos in Paul’s Letters. Society of Biblical Literature 146. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995.

______. “Life and Death, Adiaphora, and Paul’s Rhetorical Strategies.” Novum Testamentum 38, no. 1 (Jan 1996): 30-54.

Kasemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980, 1994.

Klauber, Martin I. “Francis Turretin on Biblical Accommodation: Loyal Calvinist or Reformed Scholastic?” Westminster Theological Journal 55, no. 1 (March 1993): 73-86.

Kuck, David. Judgement and Community Conflict: Paul’s Use of Apocalyptic Judgement Language in 1 Corinthians 3:5-4:5. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992.

Lewis, Jack Pearl. “Silence of Scripture in Reformation Thought.” Restoration Quarterly 48, no. 2 (Jan 2006): 73-90.

Lindbeck, George A. “Biblical Hermeneutics in Historical Perspective: Studies in Honor of Karlfried Froehlich on his Sixtieth Birthday, edited by Mark S. Burrows and Paul Rorem, 1991, review essay,” Modern Theology 10: 1 (Jan 1994), 103.

Longsworth, William M. “Ethics in Paul: The Shape of Christian Life and a Method of Moral Reasoning.” Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics (1981): 29-56.

Meyer, Ben F. Reality and Illusion in New Testament Scholarship. A Primer in Critical Realist Hermeneutics. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1994.

Mitchell, Margaret M. The Heavenly Trumpet: John Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline Interpretation. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002.

145

______. Paul, the Corinthians and the Birth of Christian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

______. “‘A Variable and Many-sorted Man’: John Chrysostom’s Treatment of Pauline Inconsistency.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 6 (1998): 93-111.

______.“Pauline Accommodation and ‘Condescension’ (συγκατάβασις): 1 Cor 9: 19–23 and the History of Influence. In Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide, ed. Troels Engberg-Pedersen, 197-214. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.

______. “Peter’s ‘Hypocrisy’ and Paul’s: Two ‘Hypocrites’ at the Foundation of Earliest Christianity?” New Testament Studies, 58 (2012): 213-234

Munzinger, André. Discerning the Spirits: Theological and Ethical Hermeneutics in Paul. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Powell, Mark Allan. “Matthew’s Beatitudes: Reversals and Rewards of the Kingdom.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 58, no. 3 (July 1996): 460-479.

______. “Binding and Loosing: A Paradigm for Ethical Discernment from the Gospel of Matthew.” Currents in Theology and Mission 30 (2003): 438-45.

Reumann, John. Philippians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Yale Bible Series 33B. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2008.

______. “Oikonomia as ‘Ethical Accommodation’ in the Fathers, and Its Pagan Backgrounds.” Studia Patristica 3 (1961): 370-79.

Richardson, Peter and Paul W. Gooch. “Accommodation Ethics.” Tyndale Bulletin 29 (1978), 89-142.

Rogers, Mark. “Charles Hodge and the Doctrine of Accommodation.” Trinity Journal 31, no. 2 (Sept 2010): 225-242.

Rorem, Paul and Mark S. Burrows, eds. Biblical Hermeneutics in Historical Perspective. Studies in Honor of Karlfried Froehlich on His Sixtieth Birthday. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Book Publishing Co., 1991.

Rudolph, David J. A Jew to the Jews: Jewish Contours of Pauline Flexibility in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.

Rummel, Erika. The Confessionalization of Humanism in Reformation Germany. Oxford Studies in Historical Theology. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

146

Sampley, J. Paul. Walking between the Times: Paul’s Moral Reasoning. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991.

______, ed. Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003.

Schnabel, Eckhard. “How Paul Developed His Ethics.” In Understanding Paul’s Ethics: Twentieth Century Approaches, edited by Brian S. Rosner, 267–97. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.

Segal, Alan F. Paul The Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1990.

Shogren, Gary Steven. “Is the Kingdom of God about Eating and Drinking or isn’t it? (Romans 14:17).” Novum Testamentum 42, no. 3 (Jan 2000): 238-256.

Swartley, Willard M. Covenant of Peace: The Missing Peace in New Testament Theology and Ethics. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006.

______. “The Relation of Justice/Righteousness to Shalom/Eirēnē.” Ex Auditu 22 (Jan 2006): 29-53.

Theissen, Gerd. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth. Edited and translated and with an introduction by John H. Schütz. Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982.

Thompson, James W. “The Background and Function of the Beatitudes in Matthew and Luke.” Restoration Quarterly 41, no. 2 (Jan 1999): 109-116.

Verhoeff, Maria. Untitled. Report no. 27 (Dec 2010) of the Research Centre for Early Christianity, Evangelische Theologische Faculteit Leuven, http://www.etf.edu/docman/onderzoek/research-centre-for-early-christianity- rcec?limit=5&limitstart=25&dir=ASC&order=date, accessed December 1, 2013.

Wedderburn, A. J. M. “Some Observations on Paul’s Use of the Phrases ‘in Christ’ and ‘with Christ.’ Journal for the Study of the New Testament no. 25 (Oct 1985): 83- 97.

147

4. DOCTRINE AND ETHICS

Allison, C. FitzSimons. The Rise of Moralism: The Proclamation of the Gospel from Hooker to Baxter. London: SPCK, 1966.

Amato-von Hemert, Katherine. “Transforming Conflict in Church.” Anglican Theological Review 83, no. 3 (June 2001): 701-705.

Aquinas. Summa Theologica, part III: Q22, New Advent, http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4022.htm, accessed Nov. 20, 2012.

______. “Treatise on Prudence and Justice.” Summa Theologica. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/SS.html, accessed January 6, 2014.

Archard, David. “Moral Compromise.” Philosophy 87 (2012): 403-420.

Aristotle and C. D. C. Reeve. Aristotle on Practical Wisdom: Nicomachean Ethics VI. Translated with an Introduction, Analysis, and Commentary. Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press, 2013.

Augustine. De diversis quaestionibus octaginta tribus/Eighty-three Different Questions. Translated by David L. Mosher. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1982.Brook, Benjamin. The Lives of the Puritans: containing a biographical account of those divines who distinguished themselves in the cause of religious liberty, from the reformation under Queen Elizabeth, to the Act of uniformity in 1662, by Benjamin Brook, in Three Volumes. Volume 3. London: James Black, 1813.

______. The City of God, X:6. New Advent. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120110.htm, accessed January 6, 2014.

______. On the Trinity, IV:14:19. New Advent. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130104.htm, accessed January 6, 2014.

Bejczy, István P. The Cardinal Virtues in the Middle Ages: A Study in Moral Thought from the Fourth to the Fourteenth Century. Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History, 202. Leiden: Brill, 2011.

Benjamin, Martin. Splitting the Difference: Compromise and Integrity in Ethics and Politics. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1990.

Berkman, John and Craig Steven Titus, eds. The Pinckaers Reader: Renewing Thomistic Moral Theology. Translated by Mary Thomas Noble O.P., Michael Sherman O.P. and Hugh Connolly. Catholic University of America Press, 2005.

148

Childress, James F. “Scripture and Christian Ethics: Some Reflections on the Role of Scripture in Moral Deliberation and Justification.” Interpretation 34, no. 4 (Oct 1980): 371-380.

Copp, David. “Introduction.” In The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory, ed. David Copp, 3-35. Oxford Handbooks in Philosophy. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Gibbard, Allan. Wise Choices, Apt Feelings: A Theory of Normative Judgment. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990.

Guroian, Vigen. “Bible and Ethics: An Ecclesial and Liturgical Interpretation,” Journal of Religious Ethics 18:1 (March 1990): 129 – 157.

Hauerwas, Stanley and Samuel Wells, eds. The Blackwell Companion to Christian Ethics. Malden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004.

Heidegger, Martin. Gelassenheit. Pfullingen: Neske, 1959.

______. Discourse on Thinking. A Translation of Gelassenheit by John M. Anderson and E. Hans Freund, with an introduction by John M. Anderson. New York: Harper and Row, 1966.

Hesselink, John. Calvin’s First Catechism: A Commentary. Columbia Series in Reformed Theology. Lousiville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997.

Hyde, Daniel R. “Lutheran Puritanism? Adiaphora in Lutheran Orthodoxy and Possible Commonalities in Reformed Orthodoxy.” American Theological Inquiry 2, no. 1 (Jan 2009): 61-83.

Kaufman, Gordon D. Systematic Theology: A Historicist Perspective. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1968.

The Lambeth Commission on Communion. The Windsor Report. London, UK: The Anglican Communion Office/The Anglican Consultative Council, 2004.

Lehmann, Paul Louis. Ethics in a Christian Context. New York: Harper & Row, 1963.

Letham, Robert. Union with Christ: In Scripture, History and Theology. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2011.

Lindberg, Carter. “Luther’s Critique of the Ecumenical Assumption that Doctrine Divides but Service Unites.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 27, no. 4 (Sept 1990): 679- 696.

149

Mayer, Thomas F. “Starkey and Melanchthon on Adiaphora: A Critique of W. Gordon Zeeveld.” The Sixteenth Century Journal 11, no. 1 (Spring 1980): 39-50.

Muller, Richard A. Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology. Vol. 2 of Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725. Second edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003.

______. “Calvin and the ‘Calvinists’: Assessing Continuities and Discontinuities between the Reformation and Orthodoxy.” Part 2. Calvin Theological Journal 30, no. 2 (Nov 1995): 345-375.

______. “Calvin and the ‘Calvinists’: Assessing Continuities and Discontinuities between the Reformation and Orthodoxy.” Part 1. Calvin Theological Journal 31, no. 1 (April 1996): 125-160.

Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Systematic Theology. Three volumes. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991- 1998.

Piper, Otto Alfred. “Justification and Christian Ethics.” Theology Today 8, no. 2 (July 1951): 167-177.

Porter, Jean. “Mere History: The Place of Historical Studies in Theological Ethics.” Journal of Religious Ethics 25, no. 3 (1998, suppl): 103-126.

Schleiermacher, Friedrich. Brief Outline of Theology as a Field of Study, Third Edition. Revised Translation of the 1811 and 1830 Editions, with essays and notes by Terrence N. Tice. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011.

Schrey, Heinsz-Horst, ed. Faith and Action: Basic Problems in Christian Ethics. Introduction by H. H. Thielicke. From the second German edition (Bremen, 1961). Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1970.

Sedgwick, Timothy F. “Revisioning Anglican Moral Theology.” Anglican Theological Review 63, no. 1 (Jan 1981): 1-20.

______. “Anglican Ethics and Moral Traditioning.” Anglican Theological Review 94, no. 4 (Sept 2012): 665-670.

Shin, Joyce S. “Accommodating the Other’s Conscience: Saint Paul’s Approach to Religious Tolerance.” Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics 28, no. 1 (March 2008): 3-23.

150

Snyder, C. Arnold. “Doing History with Theological Ethics in Mind: John Howard Yoder as Historian of Anabaptism.” Conrad Grebel Review 24, no. 2 (Spring 2006): 3- 32.

Stassen, Glen H. and David Gushee. Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003.

Straw, Carole. Gregory the Great: Perfection in Imperfection. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991.

Street, Thomas Watson. “John Calvin on Adiaphora: An Exposition and Appraisal of His Theory and Practice.” Church History 27, no. 1 (March 1958): 70-71 [dissertation summary].

Talbert, Charles H. Reading the Sermon on the Mount: Character Formation and Ethical Decision Making in Matthew 5-7. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004.

Thielicke, Helmut. Theological Ethics. 3 vols. Edited by William H. Lazareth. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1979.

Wainwright, Geoffrey. For our Salvation – Two Approaches to the Work of Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.; London: SPCK, 1997.

Werpehowski, William. “Practical Wisdom and the Integrity of Christian Life.” Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics 27, no. 2 (Sept 2007): 55-72.

Witte, John, Jr. “Moderate Religious Liberty in the Theology of John Calvin.” Calvin Theological Journal 31, no. 2 (Nov 1996): 359-403.

Wong, David B. Moral Relativity. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1986.

______. Natural Moralities: A Defense of Pluralistic Relativism. Oxford University Press, 2006.

______. “Coping with Moral Conflict and Ambiguity.” Ethics 102 (1992): 763–84.

Van Asselt, W. J. “The Fundamental Meaning of Theology: Archetypal and Ectypal Theology in Seventeenth-century Reformed Thought.” Westminster Theological Journal 64, no. 2 (Sept 2002): 319-335.

Wengert, Timothy J. Reflections on the Bound Conscience in Lutheran Theology, Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality, 2009. http://www.elca.org/What-We- Believe/Social-Issues/Social-Statements/JTF-Human-Sexuality/Resources.aspx, accessed April 1, 2012.

151

Yoder, John Howard. “The Hermeneutics of Peoplehood: A Protestant Perspective on Practical Moral Reasoning.” The Journal of Religious Ethics 10, no. 1 (Spring 1982): 40-67.

______. “Turning Point in the Zwinglian Reformation.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 32, no. 2 (April 1958): 128-140.

5. REFERENCE WORKS

“Aisthesis.” In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 1. Edited by Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich and Geoffrey William Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1985.

“Andrew Melville.” In Encyclopædia Britannica, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/374223/Andrew-Melville, accessed January 8, 2014.

Beckwith, C. A. “Polemics.” In The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. IX: Petri – Reuchlin, Philip Schaff. Accessed online August 18, 2012, http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc09/htm/iv.iii.x.htm

Bower, John R., and Chad B. Van Dixhoorn. The Westminster Assembly Project. http://www.westminsterassembly.org/about-the-project/welcome-to-the- westminster-assembly-project/

“Compromise.” In New Dictionary of Christian Ethics & Pastoral Theology, edited by David John Atkinson, David Field, Arthur F. Holmes and Oliver O’Donovan, 271-2. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1995.

“Court of High Commission.” Encyclopedia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/265134/Court-of-High-Commission, accessed February 13, 2014.

“English Civil Wars.” Encyclopedia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/187936/English-Civil- Wars/261392/Second-and-third-English-Civil-Wars-1648-51

Greaves, Richard L. “Greenhill, William (1597/8–1671).” In Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press, 2004; online edition, Jan 2008, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/11429, accessed 4 Jan, 2014.

152

“Irenicon/Irenicum”. The Oxford Universal Dictionary on Historical Principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933, 1936, 1944.

“Key Dates in the English Civil War.” UK Parliament. http://www.parliament.uk/about/living- heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/civilwar/key-dates/1603- 1640/, accessed February 13, 2014.

Kittel, Gerhard and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited and translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Abridged edition. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985.

Morgan, D. Densil. “Jones, Robert Tudur.” Welsh Biography Online, http://wbo.llgc.org.uk/en/s8- JONE-TUD-1921.html.

Muller, Richard A. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2006.

Ney, Julius. “Pareus, David.” In The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. VIII: Morality – Petersen, by Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1953. Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2000-02-09, v0.1, URL http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc08.htm

Sellberg, Erland. “Petrus Ramus.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/ramus/, accessed November 9, 2013.

“Threefold Office” (Munus Triplex). In Historical Dictionary of the Reformed Churches, edited by Benedetto, Robert and Donald K. McKim, 480-81. Second edition. Plymouth, UK: Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2010.

“Toleration Act.” In Encyclopædia Britannica, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/598612/Toleration-Act, accessed January 27, 2014.

Wengert, Timothy J. “Adiaphora” and “Antinomianism.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, edited by Hans J. Hillerbrand, 1:4-7 and 51-53. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

______. “Adiaphora and the Adiaphorist Controversies.” In The New Westminster Dictionary of Church History, vol. 1: The Early, Medieval, and Reformation Eras. Edited by Robert Benedetto, 7-8. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008.

Williamson, Reginald Ross. Ackermann’s Cambridge. London: Penguin Books, 1951.

153

Young. Grace. “John Dury.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/174393/John-Dury, accessed Jan 30, 2014.

Young, Ralph. “Jeremiah Burroughes (1599-1646).” In Puritans and Puritanism in Europe and America: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia, edited by Francis J. Bremer and Tom Webster, 41. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2006.

“1611 King James Bible Introduction.” King James Bible Online. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/1611-King-James-Bible- Introduction.php, accessed February 12, 2014.

“1636: Hartford,” The Society of Colonial Wars in the State of Connecticut, http://colonialwarsct.org/1636.htm, accessed February 14, 2014.

6. UNPUBLISHED DISSERTATIONS

These dissertations were not read for this thesis, but might aid further research.

Bradley, Rosemary D. “‘Jacob and Esau struggling in the Womb’: A Study of Presbyterian and Independent Religious Conflicts, 1640-1648: With Particular Reference to the Westminster Assembly and The Pamphlet Literature.” Ph.D. diss., University of Kent, 1975.

Davison, Jim. “Puritan Preaching as the Means of Promoting and Cultivating Godliness with Particular Reference to the Life and Ministry of Jeremiah Burroughs.” Ph.D. diss. Queen’s University of Belfast, 2005.

Ehalt, D. R. “The Development of Early Congregational Theory of the Church, with Special Reference to the Five ‘Dissenting Brethren’ at the Westminster Assembly.” Ph.D. diss., Claremont Graduate School, 1965.

Murphy, S. T. “The Doctrine of Scripture in the Westminster Assembly.” Ph.D. diss., Drew University, 1984.

Sommerville, Margaret Ruth. “Independent Thought, 1603-1649” Ph.D. diss., Cambridge University, 1981.

Van Dixhoorn, C. B. “Anglicans, Anarchists and the Westminster Assembly: The Making of a Pulpit Theology.” M.Th. thesis, Westminster Theological Seminary, 2000.

______. “Reforming the Reformation: Theological Debate at the Westminster Assembly 1643-1652.” 7 vols. Ph.D. Diss., Cambridge University, 2004.

154

APPENDIX A: Additional Works of Burroughs

In Print

The Evil of Evils, Or the Exceeding Sinfulness of Sin. Grand Rapids, MI: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2008.

Spots of the Godly and of the Wicked. Elgin, IL: Puritan Publications, 2006.

Gospel Reconciliation, Or, Christ’s Trumpet of Peace to the World. Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1997.

The Excellency of a Gracious Spirit: Delivered in a Treatise on Numbers 14:24. Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1995.

Gospel Conversation: Wherein is Shown how the Conversation of Believers must be Above what could be by the Light of Nature, Beyond those Who Lived Under the Law, and Suitable to what Truths the Gospel Holds Forth. Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1995.

Gospel Remission, Or, A Treatise Showing that True Blessedness Consists in Pardon of Sin … Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1995.

Two Treatises of Mr. Jeremiah Burroughs. Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1994.

Gospel Fear, Or, the Heart Trembling at the Word of God Evidenceth a Blessed Frame of Spirit: Delivered in several Sermons from Isaiah 66:2 and 2 Kings 22:19. Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1991.

The Saints Treasury ... :Being Sundry Sermons Preached in London. Ligonier, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1991.

The Saints’ Happiness. Introduction by John H. Gerstner. Ligonier, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1988, 1992. Reprinted from the 1867 edition of James Nichols.

The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1964.

155

Digital Archives

The Excellency of Holy Courage in Evil Times. London: Printed by Peter Cole and Edward Cole, 1661; preached 1638 {?} to the Earl of Warwick and a company of his friends.

The Sea-Mans Direction in Time of Storme. Delivered in a sermon from Psalm xclviii. 8 ... London: Printed by T. Paine and M. Simmons, 1640; Rotterdam: Printed for Thomas Lappadg, 1640; preached 1638 or 1639, to the English Congregational Church in Rotterdam, Holland.

Moses’ Self-Denial. Delivered in a treatise upon Heb. 11, the 24. verse. London: Printed by G. Dawson for Francis Eglesfield, 1641; preached 1638 or 1639, to the English Congregational Church in Rotterdam, Holland.

Moses’ Choice, with his eye fixed upon heaven: discovering the happy condition of a self- denying heart: Delivered in a treatise upon Heb. xi. 25, 26. London: Printed by M.F. for R.D.,1641; preached 1638 or 1639, to the English Congregational Church in Rotterdam, Holland.

The excellency of a gracious spirit deliuered in a treatise vpon the 14. of Numbers, verse 24. London: Printed by M[iles] F[lesher] for R. Dawlman and L. Fawne, 1638.

Sion’s Joy: A sermon preached from Isai. lxvi. 10. to the Honorable House of Commons assembled in Parliament at their publique thanksgiving, September 7. 1641. for the peace concluded between England and Scotland. London: Printed by T. P. and M. S. for R. Dawlman, 1641.

A glimpse of Sions glory or, the churches beautie specified. Published for the good and benefit of all those whose hearts are raised up in the expectation of the glorious liberties of the saints. London: Printed for William Larnar, 1614.

Foure speeches delivered in Guild-Hall on Friday the sixth of October, 1643. At a common-hall, vpon occasion of desiring the assistance of our brethren of Scotland in this warre. / Viz. the [brace] 1. by Mr. Solicitor. 2. by Mr. Edmund Calamy. 3. by Mr. Jeremiah Burroughes. 4. by Mr. Obadiah Sedgewick. Published according to order. London: Printed by R. Cotes for Jo. Bellamie, 1646.

The glorious Name of God, The Lord of Hosts. Opened in two sermons at Michael’s Cornhill, London, Vindicating the Commission from the Lord of Hosts, to subjects, in Some Case, to Take Up Arms, from Isai. Xlvi. London: Printed for R. Dawlman, 1643.

156

A briefe Answer to Doctor Fernes Booke, tending to resolve Conscience, about the Subjects taking up of Arms. 1643.

A Sermon preached before the . . . House of Peeres from Phil. iv. 12. in the Abbey at Westminster, the 26. of Novemb. 1645 … London: Printed for R. Dawlman, 1646; preached Nov. 26, 1645, to the House of Peeres.

A Sermon preached before the Honorable House of Commons Assembled in Parliament, from Mat. v. 6. at their Late Solemne Fast, August 26. 1646. London: Printed by Matthew Simmons for Hanna Allen, 1646.

The Misery of those Men who have their Portion in this Life, from Psal. xvii. 14. London, 1648.

Jacob’s Seed: or the Generation of seekers. And Davids Delight, or the Excellent on earth. Cambridge, England: Printed by Roger Daniel Printer to the Universitie of Cambridge, 1648.

The rare jevvel of Christian contentment. By Jeremiah Burroughs, preacher of the Gospel to two of the greatest congregations in England; viz. Stepney and Criplegate, London. London: Printed for Peter Cole, 1648.

The Saints Duty in Times of extremity. Opened in a sermon… occasioned upon the news of extraordinary loss to the Parliaments forces in the west. London, 1649.

Two treatises of Mr. Jeremiah Burroughs. The first of earthly mindedness, wherein is shewed, 1. What earthly mindedness is. ... 6. Directions how to get our hearts free from earthly mindedness. The second treatise, of conversing in Heaven, and walking with God. Wherein is shewed, 1. How the Saints have their conversation in Heaven. ... 9. Rules for our walking with God. The fourth volumn [sic] published by Thomas Goodwyn. William Greenhil. Sydrach Simpson. Philip Nye. William Bridge. John Yates. William Addeley. London: Printed for Peter Cole, 1649.

The eighth book of Mr Jeremiah Burroughs. Being a treatise of the evil of evils, or the exceeding sinfulness of sin…. / Published by Thomas Goodwyn, William Bridge, Sydrach Sympson, William Adderly, William Greenhil, Philip Nye, John Yates. London: Printed by Peter Cole, 1654.

The saints treasury being sundry sermons preached in London / by the late reverend and painfull minister of the gospel, Jeremiah Burroughes. London: Printed by T.C. for John Wright, 1654.

The tenth book of Mr. Jeremiah Burroughs being a treatise of hope / published by Thomas Goodwyn, [etc.]. London: Printed by Peter Cole, 1654.

157

The Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Books of Mr Jeremiah Burroughs: Containing Three Treatises: I. of Precious Faith. II. of Hope. III. the Saints Walk by Faith on Earth; by Sight in Heaven. being the Last Sermons that the Author Preached at Stepney, Neer London. London: Printed by Peter Cole, 1655.

The Saint’s Inheritance and the Worldling’s Portion Representing the Glorious Condition of a Child of God and the Misery of Having One’s Portion in This World, Unfolding the State of True Happiness with the Marks, Means, and Members Thereof. London: Printed for Francis Eglesfield, 1657.

Four Books on the Eleventh of Matthew: viz. I. Christ Inviting Sinners to Come to him for Rest. II. Christ the Great Teacher of Souls that Come to him. III. Christ the Humble Teacher of those that Come to him. IV. The only Easy way to Heaven. London, 1659.

Gospel-Revelation: In three Treatises. 1. The Nature of God. 2. The Excellencies of Christ. 3. The Excellency of Man’s Immortal Soul. London: Printed for Nath. Brook and Thomas Parkhurst, 1660.

Gospel fear, or, The heart trembling at the word of God evidenceth a blessed frame of spirit delivered in several sermons from Isa. 66, 2 and 2 Kings 22, 14. London: Printed by J.D. for B. Aylmer, 1674.

Gospel remission, or, A treatise shewing that true blessedness consists in pardon of sin wherein is discovered the [brace] many Gospel mysteries therein contained, glorious effects proceeding from it, great mistakes made about it, true signs and symptomes of it, way and means to obtain it / by Jeremiah Burroughs ; being several sermons preached immediately after those of The evil of sin by the same author, and now published by Philip Nye ... [et al.] London: Printed for Dor. Newman, 1674.

Four Useful Discourses. I. The Art of Improving a full and prosperous Condition, for the Glory of God; an Appendix to the art of Contentment, in three sermons from Phil. iv. 12. II. Christian Submission, from I Sam. iii. 18. III. Christ a Christian’s Life; and Death his Gain, Phil. i. 21. IV. The Gospel of Peace sent to the Sons of Peace: Six sermons, from Luke x. 5, 6. London: Printed for Thomas Parkhurst, 1675.

158

APPENDIX B: Outline of Chapters 15-34

A. “Dividing Distempers” Summary 1. Pride 2. Self-love 3. Envy 4. Passion 5. Rigidness 6. Rashness 7. Wilfullness 8. Unconstancy 9. Jealousy 10. Contention 11. Covetousness 12. Falseness

B. “Dividing Practices” 1. The tongue 2. Needless disputes 3. Not keeping within the bounds God has set 4. Disorderly gathering of churches 5. Seeking to demean the credits of those men whom the Lord uses as instruments of good 6. Giving characterizing names to men that are names of division 7. Whatsoever personal evil there is in anyone who is in a differing way from others is cast upon all who are in that way 8. An inordinate cleaving to some, so as to deny due respect to others 9. Because men cannot join in all things with others, they will join in nothing 10. Fastening upon those who are in any error all those false things and dangerous consequences that by strength of reason and subtlety may be drawn from that error 11. To commend and countenance what we care not for in opposition to what we dislike 12. Revenge

C. Five Theses on Division 1. Evil of divisions 2. Sinfulness of divisions 3. Woeful miseries of our divisions 4. Cautions about our divisions 5. Cure of our divisions

159

D. The Cures 1. Joining principles a. the possibility of peace and love b. the method of love and peace c. doing good d. mutual good e. public vs. personal good f. golden rule g. honour in yielding h. avoiding strife i. properly regarding enemies j. suffering evil k. non-provocation l. desirable vs. necessary peace m. erring on the side of good n. sin and baseness no trade for peace

2. Joining considerations a. the ways God has joined us b. extent of agreement c. consideration of others d. counting the cost of contention e. the strongest have need of the weakest f. perspective g. God’s desire for peace h. Jesus’ response to us i. called to peace j. God’s presence k. accounting to Jesus l. our weakness m. our mortality n. heaven

3. Joining graces a. Wisdom b. faith c. humility d. self-denial e. patience f. holy joy g. meekness and gentleness h. love

160

4. Joining practices a. gentle language b. humility c. amnesty d. understanding e. “generosity” f. yielding g. love h. diligence i. respect j. “reversal” k. Godly zeal l. “benevolence” m. mending n. positive regard o. prayer