Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T00:44:39.434Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perry Miller's Rehabilitation of the Puritans: A Critique

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

George M. Marsden
George M. Marsden
Affiliation:
Mr. Marsden is associate professor of history inCalvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the era between the Civil War and the Depression the mythical character called the “American Mind” was troubled. All was well during the day when prosperity and success faced him at every turn, but at night he would sometimes dream of his childhood and awake feeling strangely uneasy. His analyst explained that this tension was the product of latent guilt feelings and suggested for therapy that he read himself to sleep with recent studies of the oppressive effects of Puritanism on young national minds. Turning to these works, the “American Mind” found that the analyst had been quite right. The source of the guilt feelings, he discovered, was an irrational phase of his development called the Reformation. This phase had been dominant when he lived in New England (he since had moved to the Midwest), but he was assured that the latest scholarship had discovered its influence to be harsh, grotesque, superstitious, narrowminded, illiberal, and worst of all intolerant.1 The problem was, one expert informed him, that this era “was unleavened by the spirit of the Renaissance.” Another observed that the Reformation attitudes were a “subtle poison” flowing thorugh the veins of the entire social organism. Still another implied that the “splendor of the Renaissance” had been delayed three hundred years by Reformation intolerance. Convinced that the open-mindedness of the Renaissance was healthier than the irrational bigotry of the Reformation, the “American Mind” of this era began to feel easier about his past. He resolved to tolerate everyone, except of course his more conservative enemies whom he damned as “Puritan.”

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , March 1970 , pp. 91 - 105
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See, for example, Adams, Brooks, The Emancipation of Massachusetts (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Co., 1887), p. 42Google Scholar; Adams, James Truslow, The Founding of New England (Boston: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1921), p. 174CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Parrington, Vernon, The Colonial Mind 1620–1800 (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1927), pp. 15, 29.Google Scholar

2. Parrington, op. cit., p. 5.

3. J. T. Adams, op. cit., p. 66.

4. Brooks Adams, op. cit., pp. 1–2.

5. Miller, Perry, The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century (Boston: Beacon Press, 1939), p. 59Google Scholar (hereafter cited as NEM). References in the text to The New England Mind all refer to this volume and not to the admirable sequel, The New England Mind: From Colony to Province (Boston, 1953).Google Scholar

6. Becker, Carl, The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth-Century Philosophers (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1932), p. 44.Google Scholar

7. NEM, p. 4.

8. NEM, p. ix. Cf. Miller, Perry and Johnson, Thomas H., eds., The Puritans (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1963), I, p. 19Google Scholar (from Miller's introduction).

9. Puritans, pp. 24, 21.

10. NEM, p. 116.

11. Puritans, pp. 30, 36.

12. NEM, p. viii.

13. As, for example, NEM, pp. x, 20; Puritans, pp. 43–4.

14. NEM, p. 65.

15. “The Marrow of Puritan Divinity,” Errand into the Wilderness (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1964), p. 78Google Scholar; cf. p. 82. This essay was originaily published in The Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts for February 1935 (hereafter cited as “Marrow”).

16. NEM, pp. 397, 384; “Marrow,” pp. 69, 82.

17. For other examples see NEM, p. 384 where Miller gives no hint that the concept of man's “debt to the law” is taken from Galatians 5:3; NEM, p. 40 where Genesis 1:28, the source of the “cultural mandate” (a standard Calvinist concept) is not mentioned; and the discussion on the covenant, below.

18. NEM, p. 89.

19. Miller does present a convincing argument for the case that Puritan confidence in reason had the potential for undermining the biblical norm. See, for example, NEM, p. 73.

20. NEM, p. 124.

21. Cf. Miller's, own statement to this effect, Puritans, p. 29.Google Scholar

22. NEM, p. 95.

23. NEM, p. 10.

24. Occasionally, it simply obscures the precision of Puritan thought. On p. 54, NEM, for instance, Miller invents the term “imperfect regeneration” to describe what is clearly the process of sanctification. In another place he virtually denies that the Puritans held to the dual character of the transmission of original sin as both inherited depravity and judical imputation of guilt (“Marrow,” p. 81). Cf. the “Savoy Declaration,” VI, 2, 3Google Scholar, where this distinction is serupulously maintained, Walker, Williston, Creeds and Platforms of Congregationalism (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1893), pp. 367ff.Google Scholar

25. NEM, p. 467; cf. p. 45, where he claims that they “minimized the role of the Savior in their glorification of the Father.” It is, of course, true that the sovereignty of God played a major role in their thinking, but it does not follow therefore that they “minimized” the doctrine of Christ.

26. Cf. Niebuhr, H. Richard, The Kingdom of God in America (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1959), p. 94.Google Scholar

27. Puritans, p. 57.

28. David D. Hall, “The Puritans versus John Calvin: A Critique of Perry Miller, The New England Mind.” Unpublished paper delivered at the Meeting of the American Historical Association, December 30, 1967. I am indebted to David Hall for furnishing me with a copy of this fine paper and for some useful advice and encouragement.

29. “Marrow,” p. 51.

30. “Marrow,” p. 64; cf. p. 93.

31. NEM, p. 397.

32. See, for instance, Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Beveridge, Henry, trans., 2 vols. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Erdmans, 1957), Book III, Chapter xx, Sections 36–40 on the fatherhood of GodGoogle Scholar; II, vii, 11, and II, ix, 5 on God's skill as a teacher; and cf. Calvin's, denial that God acts with the “caprice of a tyrant,” III, xxiii, 2Google Scholar. (Hereafter Beveridge translation will be cited unless otherwise indicated).

33. Discounting duplications, Miller cites Calvin's work ten times in these studies. Of these, eight misrepresent Calvin in some substantial way. The only one of Calvin's work ever cited is the Institutes.

34. “Marrow,” p. 81n.

35. Institutes, II, i, 6Google Scholar, and II, i, 8; cf. II, i, 5.

36. “Marrow,” p. 82 and 82n.

37. Here again the confusion on this point is created by Miller's speaking of a potential of Puritan doctrine as though it were an actuality. His misleading observations on the implications of ineceusability seem all the more strange in the light of his mention in a previous note that inexcusability “is a good Calvinist doctrine,” (“Marrow,” 78n). Even in this previous note, however, Miller claims incorrectly that in Calvin, natural man's knowledge of natural law had “no validity for any further regulation of life” (i. e. further than showing their inexcusability), whereas Calvin says, “Nothing, indeed, is more common, than for man to be sufficiently instructed in a right course of conduct by natural law;” Institutes, II, ii, 22.Google Scholar

38. “Marrow,” pp. 75, 75n; cf. NEM, pp. 186–7.

39. Institutes, II, ii, 15Google Scholar, and II, ii, 17. In each of the above instances Miller does sense differences in nuances between Calvin and the Puritans. The present analysis is not intended to deny that there were such differences. It does, however, point out that Miller exaggerates them to the point of distortion.

40. NEM, p. 370.

41. Institutes, III, xxi, 1Google Scholar. In this, as in the example that follows, Calvin warns only against speculations into the divine mysteries that go beyond Scripture. Cf. III, xxiv, 4, for a more complete statement on election as the primary ground of assurance.

42. “Marrow,” p. 51; cf. Institutes, III, xxi–xxv.Google Scholar

43. Institutes, II, ii, 1Google Scholar; cited in NEM, p. 367 and in “Marrow,” p. 54.

44. Institutes, II, v, 1–7Google Scholar; III, xxiii, 9–14.

45. NEM, p. 396.

46. NEM, p. 368; NEM, p. 394; “Marrow,” p. 73.

47. With regard to the social covenant Miller acknowledges the scriptural origins more prominently (NEM, p. 399). Here his contention that is was designed primarily to encourage obedience to the government is more satisfactory than is the same argument with regard to the covenant of grace, since in the social covenant the complicating feature of the gracious work of Christ is removed. The development of the Congregationalist church covenant, for which there is less biblical precedent, presents the best case for showing that the Puritans simply made a logical (probably Ramist) extension of the concept to another sphere.

48. NEM, p. 502. Cf. “Marrow,” p. 61, where Miller describes how the covenant was given to Abraham.

49. Trinterud, Leonard J., “The Origins of Puritanism,” Church History, 20 (1951), 39–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Moeller, Jens G., “The Beginnings of Puritan Covenant Theology,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 14 (1963), 46–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Emerson, Everett H., “Calvin and Covenant Theology,” Church History, 25 (1956), 136–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

50. NEM, p. 395, and “Marrow,” p. 88.

51. NEM, p. 396.

52. See, for instance, Walker, , Creeds and Platforms of Congregationalisim, the “Savoy Declaration,” VIII, 3Google Scholar: “… the covenant of grace; wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved ….” And XVI, 5: “We cannot by our best works merit pardon of sin, or eternal life…,” Notice also that men's “ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ…” XVI, 3Google Scholar. On faith as a gift of grace, see “Savoy Declaration,” XIV, 1Google Scholar. Miller neglects this aspect when he suggests that the covenant is “ a quid pro quo, an ‘if I believe’ necessitating a ‘you have to save me,’” rather than involving “irresistable grace, unexpected and undeserved.” “Marrow,” p. 71, cf. NEM, p. 389.

53. NEM, pp. 377, 382, for example.

54. “Savoy Declaration,” VIII, 5.Google Scholar

55. “Savoy Declaration,” XVI, 5, 6Google Scholar; cf. VII, 1. Miller does mention this aspect (NEM, p. 387), but he does not follow its implications in his subsequent analysis (e. g. NEM, p. 395).

56. In the “Savoy Declaration,” for instance, the covenant is never mentioned In the chapter on “Good Works,” and the primary ground for urging obedience is simply that God demands it.

57. “Marrow,” p. 60.

58. NEM, p. 889.

59. See the excellent treatment of these subjects by Hoekema, Anthony of Calvin Theological Seminary, “The Covenant of Grace in Calvin's Teaching,” Calvin Theological Journal, 2 (1967)Google Scholar. Hoekema argues that “for Calvin the covenant idea is the thread which ties salvation history together,” and provides documentation for this from seven separate sections of the Institutes; pp. 136–139.

60. Institutes, II, x, 2 (John Allen translation).

61. Moeller, , “Puritan Covenant Theology,” p. 49nGoogle Scholar; “Marrow,” p. 69 Miller claims incorrectly that “The beginnings of this conception are to be found in Ames, and it was probably his chief contribution to the system.”

62. “Marrow,” p. 64.

63. Quoted in Hoekema, , “Covenant … in Calvin,” p. 142Google Scholar from Corpus Reformatorum, XXVI, 242Google Scholar, trans. Golding, Arthur, Sermons of Master John Calvin upon the Fifth Book of Moses called Deuteronomie (London, 1583), pp. 179–180.Google Scholar

64. Quoted in Hoekema, , “Covenant … in Calvin,” p. 145Google Scholar from Golding, op. cit., p. 913b. See Hoekema, pp. 140–144, for further examples of Calvin's teachings on the above points.

65. “Marrow,” p. 61n.

66. Commentary on Genesis, Calvin Translation Society edition (Edinburgh, 1847), p. 444Google Scholar; cf. Moeller, , “Puritan Covenant Theology,” p. 49Google Scholar, and Hoekema, , “Covenant … in Calvin,” p. 143.Google Scholar

67. NEM, p. 395; cf. “Marrow,’ p. 88.

68. Hoekema, , “Covenant … in Calvin,” p. 155Google Scholar. Hoekema's study makes no reference to Miller.

69. Institutes, III, xxi, 6 (Battles translation).

70. Quoted in Hoekema, , “Covenant … in Calvin,” p. 147Google Scholar from Golding, op. cit., pp. 923–24. See Hoekema, pp. 144, 155–161 for numerous other examples of how Calvin developed this doctrine, together with a valuable exposition.

71. Hoekema, , “Covenant … in Calvin,” p. 155.Google Scholar

72. Cf. Trinterud, , “Origins of Puritanism,” p. 48.Google Scholar

73. Hoekema, , “Covenant … in Calvin,” p. 140Google Scholar; cf. p. 134.

74. See especially, Trinterud, “Origins of Puritanism” Moeller, “Puritan Covenant Theology”; and Emerson, “Calvin and Covenant Theology.”

75. Thia suggestion would be supported by Moeller's evidence of the influence of the Genevan Bible of 1560 in disseminating covenant views in England; “Puritan Covenant Theology,” p. 57.