'Puritan' Nickname Coined 450 Years Ago

It was in 1564, according to Thomas Fuller (The Church History of Great Britain, Vol. 2 (1854 ed.), p. 474), that the term 'Puritan' first began to be used by English Bishops who opposed those who desired a purer, Reformed religion in the Anglican Church (although the movement itself began earlier). Perhaps hearkening back to the name Cathari, or Puritan, which was applied to other sects at different times in church history, it was intended as an odious slur, as was 'precisian,' and 'Presbyterian,' as used by Archbishop Matthew Parker, for instance, in his letters to describe the reforming party of his church. As with many such labels, what was intended as an insult was eventually embraced by those so-called, although other more neutral terms such as 'dissenters' and 'nonconformists' were sometimes preferred. John Geree embraced 'Puritan' and 'Nonconformist' in The Character of an Old English Puritan, or Non-Conformist (1646):

The Old English Puritan was such an one, that honored God above all, and under God gave every one his due. His first care was to serve God, and therein he did not what was good in his own, but in God’s sight, making the word of God the rule of his worship. He highly esteemed order in the House of God: but would not under colour of that submit to superstitious rites, which are superfluous, and perish in their use. He reverenced Authority keeping within its sphere: but durst not under pretence of subjection to the higher powers, worship God after the traditions of men. He made conscience of all God’s ordinances, though some he esteemed of more consequence.

Robert Bolton, for example, spoke of 'Puritan' as "the honourable nickname of the best and holiest men" (Mr. Bolton's Last and Learned Worke of the Foure Last Things (1635), p. 12).

Robert Bolton, A Discourse About the True State of Happinesse (1631), p. 163:

I am persuaded there was never poor persecuted word, since malice against God first seized on the damned angels, and the graces of heaven dwelt in the heart of man, that passed through the mouths of all sorts of unregenerate men, with more distastefulness and gnashing of teeth, than the name of puritan doth at this day; which notwithstanding as it is now commonly meant, and ordinarily proceeds from the spleen and spirit of profaneness and good fellowship, as an honourable nickname, that I may so speak, of christianity and grace.

Elsewhere he is reported to have said:

All those nick-names of Puritan, Precisian, Hypocrite, &c. with which lewd tongues are wont to load the saints of God, are so many honourable badges of their worthy deportment in the holy path, and resolute standing on the Lord's side.

Samuel Rutherford, Letters (1894 ed.), p. 512:

I assure you, howbeit we be nicknamed Puritans, that all the powers of the world shall not prevail against us.

George Gillespie, English Popish Ceremonies (1846 ed.), Vol. 1., p. 39:

...they make godly and zealous Christians to be mocked and nicknamed Puritans, except they can swallow the camel of conformity....We know the old Waldenses before us were also named by their adversaries, Cathares or Puritans; and that, without cause, hath this name been given both to them and us.

Packer sums up the issues beautifully. J.I. Packer, A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life, p. 114:

Because of their concern for preciseness in following our God's revealed will in matters moral and ecclesiastical, the first Puritans were dubbed 'precisians.' Though ill-meant and derisive, this was in fact a good name for them. Then as now, people explained their attitude as due to peevish cantankerousness and angularity or morbidity of temperament, but that was not how they themselves saw it. Richard Rogers, the Puritan pastor of Wethersfield, Essex, at the turn of the sixteenth century, was riding one day with the local lord of the manor, who, after twitting him for some time about his 'precisian' ways, asked him what it was that made him so precise. 'O sir,' replied Rogers, 'I serve a precise God.' If there were such a thing as a Puritan crest, this would be its proper motto. A precise God -- a God, that is, who has made a precise disclosure of his mind and will in Scripture, and who expects from his servants a corresponding preciseness of belief and behaviour -- it was this view of God that created and controlled the historic Puritan outlook. The Bible itself led them to it. And we who share the Puritan estimate of Holy Scripture cannot excuse ourselves if we fail to show a diligence and conscientiousness equal to theirs in ordering our lives according to God's written word.

John Winthrop's Resolutions

In the Reformed world, the Resolutions of young Jonathan Edwards are well-known. Less well-known are the resolutions of John Winthrop a century before, scattered throughout his spiritual journal, which he faithfully recorded, along with his failings in the flesh and testimonies to the grace of God working in him.

John Winthrop, Experiencia:

The 20 of April, 1606, I made a new Covenant with the Lord which was this:
Of my part, that I would reform these sins by his grace: pride, covetousness, love of this world, vanity of mind, unthankfulness, sloth, both in his service and in my calling, not preparing myself with reverence and uprightness to come to his word. Of the Lords part that he would give me a new heart, joy in his spirit, that he would dwell with me, that he would strengthen me against the world, the flesh, and the Devil, that he would forgive my sins and increase my faith. God give me grace to perform my promise and I doubt not but he will. God make it fruitful. Amen.

December 12, 1606...In these following Experiences there be diverse vows, promises to God, or Resolutions and purposes of my heart, occasioned through the oft experience of my weaknesses in such things, and my great desire of keeping peace and holding communion with God, many of which I have in time observed that I have great need to repent (in some of them) my unadvisedness in making them, considering that they have proved snares to my Conscience, and (in others of them) my wretchedness and sin in not carefully observing them. Mr. [Thomas] Cartwright in his Answer to the Rheims Testament: Acts 5. 4. giveth some directions on this point.

1611. The 22 of August it pleased God to send me a sore sickness wherein besides the work of God's Spirit upon my conscience, I did most evidently perceive his great mercy and care in supporting me, easing the pain, giving me patience, and much cheerfulness, and willingness to abide his good will, and before the sickness was come to the height, God in mercy cut it off by sending me without any means a great relief.

One thing which I observed in this sickness was that God visited upon me many of my bold runnings out against conscience, which I then when I committed them passed over with slight repentance, and now had surely smarted well for them if I had not now stopped them by serious and speedy turning to God, whereupon I resolved not to be so bold to sin against my conscience in time to come.

Feb. [1612]...I saw my great folly in that I placed so much felicity in present outward things and in the hope of things to come, when as I am sure that I shall have them but for a short time, if at all. The danger and hurt of these earthly joys I find to be greater in that they diminish the joy of my salvation: wherefore I have resolved by the grace of God, to hold my affections in a narrower compass and not to suffer my heart to delight more in any thing than in the comfort of my salvation.

September 8. 1612. Finding that the variety of meats draws me on to eat more than standeth with my health, I have resolved not to eat of more then 2 dishes at any one meal, Whether fish, flesh, fowl or fruit or white meats etc: whether at home or abroad; the lord give me care and ability to perform it. I found that the pride of my heart, viz: these great thoughts of mine own gifts, credit, greatness, goodness etc. were like a canker in my profession, eating out the comfort of all duties, depriving God of a principal part of his right in my heart, which I daily perceived, when it pleased God to let me see my meanness in his exceeding greatness: whereupon I resolved to make it one of my chief petitions to have that grace to be poor in spirit: I will ever walk humbly before my God, and meekly, mildly, and gently towards all men, so shall I have peace.

May 23, 1613. When my condition was much straightened, partly through my long sickness, partly through want of freedom, partly through lack of outward things, I prayed often to the Lord for deliverance, referring the means to himself, and with all I often promised to put forth myself to much fruit when the Lord should enlarge me. Now that he hath set me at great liberty, giving me a good end to my tedious quartan, freedom from a superior will and liberal maintenance by the death of my wife's father (who finished his days in peace the 15 of May, 1613). I do resolve first to give myself, my life, my wit, my health, my wealth to the service of my God and Savior, who by giving himself for me, and to me, deserves whatsoever I am or can be, to be at his Commandment, and for his glory:
2. I will live where he appoints me.
3. I will faithfully endeavor to discharge that calling which he shall appoint me unto.
4. I will carefully avoid vain and needles expenses that I may be the more liberal to good uses.
5. My property, and bounty, must go forth abroad, yet I must ever be careful that it begin at home.
6. I will so dispose of my family affairs as my morning prayers and evening exercises be not omitted.
7. I will have a special care of the good education of my children.
8. I will banish profanes from my family.
9. I will diligently observe the Lords Sabbath both for the avoiding and preventing worldly business, and also for the religious spending of such times as are free from public exercises, viz. the morning, noon, and evening.
10. I will endeavor to have the morning free for private prayer, meditation and reading.
11. I will flee Idleness, and much worldly business.
12. I will often pray and confer privately with my wife.
I must remember to perform my father's Will faithfully, for I promised him so to do; and particularly to pay Mr. Meges 40 a year till he should otherwise be provided for.

[Feb. 3, 1617]...After this, settling myself to walk uprightly with my God, and diligently in my calling, and having an heart willing to deny myself, I found the Godly life to be the only sweet life, and my peace with my God to be a true heaven upon earth. I found God ever present with me, in prayer and meditation, in the duties of my calling, etc: I could truly loath my former folly in preferring the love of earthly pleasures before the love of my heavenly father. I did wonder what madness was in me, that I should leave the fellowship of my Savior, to keep fellowship with unfruitful works of darkness; I was not then troubled with the common cares and desires that I was wont to be taken up with, as of food, apparel, credit, pleasure, etc: but was well contented with what God sent: what can I say? I find a change in my heart and whole man, as apparent as from darkness to light. God of his mercy continue and increase it. I find withal that I was ready upon every object or occasion, to embrace the delight in earthly things again, which I see plainly will soon get within me again, if I slack my watchfulness never so little, so as I resolve by God's grace to keep my heart with all diligence, and to set a watch over my mouth, eyes, ears, etc, when I am alone, in company, at home, abroad, in every business, service of God, etc. O Lord my God, for Jesus Christ his sake enable me hereunto, and strengthen the poor weak faith of thy unworthy servant.

November: 1617...Still I find by continual experience that the most usual thing that turns me out of my course and breaks off my peace with my God is the embracing the love of earthly things, and seeking a kind of secure and commodious settling in these things; which as it greatly delights the wanton flesh, so it as fast quenches all delight and appetite to heavenly things; it blinds the Judgement, takes away all affection, and dulls all gifts both of body and mind, making all unserviceable, etc: I still pray, O Lord, crucify this world unto me, for surely the love of thee and the love of the world cannot stand together.

I have found this infallibly true by oft experience since, and I am fully resolved, that if I will keep the love of God, I must cast quite off the love of the world.

January 10, 161[8]. Afterwards finding myself snared by the world, I could not be at rest until by reading Mr. [Robert] Bolton's discourse of true happiness, I was brought to a more thorough discovery of my sinful heart and ways, and thereupon to more sound repentance and resolution of reformation; when again upon sound deliberation being free from all passion, or oppression of melancholy, I did quietly, cheerfully and absolutely resign up myself again unto my God, covenanting to walk faithfully with him, and praying fervently yet without any distemper of affection, etc, that he would rather take me out of the world or cast me into any affliction, sickness, poverty, disgrace, or whatsoever, so himself would not fail me in them, then to give me up to the slavery of the world, to mine old profane, idle, voluptuous, and foolish heart; and so I beg still of him for the Lord Jesus' sake.

Aug. 22, 1619. I had been drawn from my steadfastness, and walked in an unsettled course, for the space of a year and more, before this time: I had made divers attempts to return again, but they still vanished, my zeal was cooled, my comfort in heavenly things was gone, I had no joy in prayer, nor in the Sabbath, nor in God's word, nor in the Communion of Saints, or if I had any, it was so soon gone, as it was not to be regarded; and now it pleased God to open mine eyes again upon a Sabbath day, and I found the cause of all to be, that I had again embraced this present world, eagerly pursuing the delights and pleasures of it, and I might easily observe that as the love of the world prevailed, so the love of God and all goodness decayed. Hereupon (by God's grace) I have again resolved to renounce this world, and to hold in my affections to the love and estimation of heavenly things; the Lord in mercy enable me hereunto.

December: 1628....The Lord give me grace, never to forget this kindness but to cleave fast unto him, and to hold that resolution of obedience etc, which he wrought in me.

Puritan Classic on Marriage Reprinted After 350 Years

Ruling Elder John Uselding of Liberty and Grace Reformed Church in Warrenton, Virginia, has done the church a valuable service by republishing a Puritan classic on marriage that has long been out of print and difficult to find. Matrimonial Honor by Daniel Rogers was completed in 1634, but first published in 1642. Along with William Gouge's Of Domestical Duties (1622); Matthew Griffith's Bethel (1633); and William Whateley's A Bride Bush (1616); it is considered to be one of the most highly regarded of the English Puritan domestic conduct books.

Chilton Latham Powell, English Domestic Relations, 1487-1653: A Study of Matrimony and Family Life in Theory and Practice as Revealed by the Literature, law, and History of the Period, p. 138, writes:

Daniel Rogers' Matrimonnial Honovr is interesting for several reasons. It was written by a minister of the Church of England; like Gouge's book, it is an exposition of life rather than the Scriptures; it is extremely human in its attitude, kindly towards the much abused weaknesses of mankind, and respectful towards people whose beliefs differed from the author's own. Were it not for the fact that it covers but a small part of the field, although 389 pages in length, it would surely outrank all others of the type. Rogers discusses only two main subjects, the honor of matrimony and the duties of husband and wife, but digresses at times to speak of parental consent to child marriages, of contracts of marriage, and, in an appendix, of chastity and the lack of it.

Daniel Rogers (1573–1652), the son of Richard Rogers (1550?-1618), was married twice, first to Margaret Bishop, and later to Sarah Evered. His first marriage, from which he had one son, Daniel, who became a minister himself, seems to have been a difficult one. From the second marriage, he had four more children: Hannah, Samuel, Mary and (named for his first wife) Margaret. Margaret married Renatus Jordain, a French Huguenot refugee, and was the mother of John Jortin, the English church historian. Mary became the wife of Puritan William Jenkyn.

In an age when marriage is lightly esteemed, and greatly trampled upon, Rogers' defense of the honor of matrimony is needed more than ever. He wrote:

Marriage is the Preservative of chastity, the Seminary of the Common-wealth, seed-plot of the Church, pillar (under God) of the world, right-hand of providence, supporter of laws, states, orders, offices, gifts and services: the glory of peace, the sinewes of war, the maintenance of policy, the life of the dead, the solace of the living, the ambition of virginity, the foundation of Countries, Cities, Universities, succession of Families, Crownes and Kingdoms.

Edification Press has made Matrimonial Honor available at both Amazon and Barnes & Noble. This is a book which I am very pleased to see in print once again, and that I highly recommend. Elder Uselding notes that Barnes & Noble has the best price:

Currently Barnes & Noble is offering the book at a much lower price than Amazon. Receive an additional 15% off at barnesandnoble.com using coupon code U3D8B4J. The coupon code is valid until October 28, 2010 at 2:59 a.m. Eastern Time.

Elder Uselding also plans to republish future Puritan works, Lord willing, including Robert Bolton's A Three-Fold Treatise.

Principles of Comfort

Lord, I believe; help thou my unbelief. (Mark 9.24)

Though we find ourselves not what we ought to be, yet there is a principle of comfort to be had by those with afflicted consciences, as Robert Bolton describes it, if our sincere inward desire is grieved at how short we fall of the holy standard of perfection to which we are called and earnestly longs to be united to Christ and his perfect righteousness, then we may thank God for such an evidence of true saving faith, however weak that faith might be.

Henry Scudder, The Christian's Daily Walk, pp. 311-312:

Many think that they are hypocrites, who yet are sincere; wherefore try whether you be an hypocrite or upright, by the signs of uprightness before delivered, Chap. XI., Sect. I.

Only for the present, note this; when was it known, that an hypocrite did so see his hypocrisy, as to have it a burden to him, and to be weary of it, and to confess it, and bewail it, and to ask forgiveness heartily of God; and above all things to labour to be upright? If you find yourselves thus disposed against hypocrisy and for uprightness, although I would have you humbled for the remainder of hypocrisy which you discern to be in you; yet chiefly I would have you to be thankful to God, and to take comfort in this, that you feel it, and dislike it: thank God therefore for your uprightness, comfort yourselves in it, and cherish and nourish it in you, and fear not.

Robert Bolton, A Treatise on Comforting Afflicted Consciences, pp. 258-261:

There is a precious principle in the mystery of salvation, which, as a comforting cordial water, serves to quicken and revive in the swoonings and faintings of the body, defection of the spirits, and sinking of the heart; so it may be sovereign to support and succour in afflictions and dejections of soul, and weakness of our spiritual state. It is thus delivered by divines: --

"A constant and earnest desire to be reconciled to God, to believe and to repent, if it be in a touched heart, is in acceptation with God as reconciliation, faith, repentance itself." 1

"A weak faith shows itself by this grace of God, namely, an unfeigned desire, not only of salvation (for that the wicked and graceless man may have), but of reconciliation with God in Christ. This is a sure sign of faith in every touched and humbled heart, and it is peculiar to the elect." 2

"Those are blessed who are displeased with their own doubting and unbelief; if they have a true earnest desire to be purged from this distrust, and to believe in God through Christ." 3

"Our desire of grace, faith, and repentance, are the graces themselves which we desire; at least, in God's acceptation, who accepteth the will for the deed, and of our affections for the actions." 4

"Hungering and thirsting desires are evidences of a repenting heart." 5

"True desire argues the presence of things desired, and yet argues not the feeling of it." 6
...
"I think, whensoever the humbled sinner sees an infinite excellency in Christ, and the favour of God by him, that it is more worth than all the world, and so sets his heart upon it that he is resolved to seek it without ceasing, and to part with all for the obtaining it; now, I take it, is faith begun." -- "What graces thou unfeignedly desirest, and constantly usest the means to attain, thou hast." 8

"There is no rock more sure than this truth of God, that the heart that complaineth of the want of grace, desireth above all things the supply of that want, useth all holy means for the procurement of that supply, cannot be destitute of saving grace." 9

"Such are we by imputation as we be in affection. And he is now no sinner, who for the love he beareth to righteousness would be no sinner. Such as we be in desire and purpose, such we be in reckoning and account with God, who giveth that true desire and holy purpose to none but to his children whom he justifieth." 10

"We must remember that God accepts affecting for effecting; willing for working; desires for deeds; purposes for performances; pence for pounds; and unto such as do their endeavour, hath promised his grace enabling them every day to do more and more." 11

"If there be in thee a sorrow for thine unbelief; a will and desire to believe; and a care to increase in faith by the use of good means; there is a measure of true faith in thee, and by it thou mayest assure thyself that thou art the child of God." 12

"It is a great grace of God to feel the want of God's graces in thyself, and to hunger and thirst after them." 13

"If you desire healing of your nature, groan in desire for grace, perceive your foulness unto a loathing of yourself, fear not, sin hath no dominion over you." -- "Sense of want of grace, complaint and mourning from that sense, desire, settled and earnest, with such mourning to have the want supplied, use of good means, with attending upon him therein for this supply, is surely of grace." -- "What graces thou unfeignedly desirest and constantly usest the means to attain, thou hast." 14

Take it in short from me thus: --

A true desire of grace argues a saving and comfortable estate.

1 [William] Perkins, in his Grain of Mustard Seed, Concl. 3.
2 Idem, in his Exposition of the Creed.
3 Idem, upon the Sermon on the Mount.
4 [John Downame], in his Christian Warfare, chap. xlii.
5 [Daniel] Dyke, of Repentance, chap. xv.
6 T.T. upon Psalm xxxii.
8 [John] Rogers of Dedham, in his Doctrine of Faith, chap. ii.
9 [Samuel] Crook, serm. iii.
10 [Richard] Greenham.
11 Dyke, of Self-Deceiving, chap. xix.
12 Perkins, on Galatians.
13 Broad, p. 88.
14 Wilson on Faith.

Four Last Things

The Puritans were noted for pressing upon sinners and saints thoughts of the "four last things": Death, Judgment, Heaven and Hell. Eternal life and death, a question that modern society would gloss over or avoid confronting altogether, was an important theme of Puritan preaching and teaching, because human nature has not changed too much since their day. Robert Bolton's treatise on these matters was published two years after his death, having been completed as he himself prepared to face his Maker. Richard Baxter warned sinners against carnal security: "O sirs, believe it, death and judgment, and heaven and hell, are other matters when you come near them, than they seem to carnal eyes afar off. Then you will hear such a message as I bring you, with more awakened, regardful hearts" (A Call ot the Unconverted). William Bates' discourses on this subject were prefaced by an epistle dedicatory to the "right honourable Rachel Lady Russel," to whom he addressed this plea:

Of all affairs for the compassing whereof men are so diligent and solicitous, there is none of that absolute necessity, and high importance, as the preparation for death and judgment, and the immediate consequence of them, heaven and hell, to obtain the one, and escape the other. This requires the whole man in his best vigour, and should be the work of the day, but it is usually delayed till the melancholy evening of the age, or the twilight of death. The trifles of this world divert them from that main business, to which all other things should be subordinate.

While John Bunyan was in prison in 1664 he published a series of poems, "to be sold by his wife or children, to aid in their humble maintenance," later collected and published together as One Thing Is Needful; or, Serious Meditations Upon the Four Last Things: Death, Judgment, Heaven, and Hell. The reader would be blessed to prayerfully consider the full corpus of these poems, but here I have space to present only his "Introduction to the Ensuing Discourse":

1. These lines I at this time present
To all that will them heed,
Wherein I show to what intent
God saith, Convert with speed.

2. For these four things come on apace,
Which we should know full well,
Both death and judgment, and, in place
Next to them, heaven and hell.

3. For doubtless man was never born
For this life and no more:
No, in the resurrection morn
They must have weal or woe.

4. Can any think that God should take
That pains, to form a man
So like himself, only to make
Him here a moment stand?

5. Or that he should make such ado,
By justice, and by grace;
By prophets and apostles too,
That men might see his face?

6. Or that the promise he hath made,
Also the threatenings great,
Should in a moment end and fade?
O! no, this is a cheat.

7. Besides, who is so mad, or worse,
To think that Christ should come
From glory, to be made a curse,
And that in sinners’ room,

8. If nothing should by us be had
When we are gone from hence,
But vanities, while here? O mad
And foolish confidence.

9. Again, shall God, who is the truth,
Say there is heaven and hell
And shall men play that trick of youth
To say, But who can tell?

10. Shall he that keeps his promise sure
In things both low and small,
Yet break it like a man impure,
In matters great’st of all?

11. O, let all tremble at that thought,
That puts on God the lie,
That saith men shall turn unto nought
When they be sick and die.

12. Alas, death is but as the door
Through which all men do pass,
To that which they for evermore
Shall have by wrath or grace.

13. Let all therefore that read my lines,
Apply them to the heart:
Yea, let them read, and turn betimes,
And get the better part.

14. Mind therefore what I treat on here,
Yea, mind and weigh it well;
‘Tis death and judgment, and a clear
Discourse of heaven and hell.

What's In A Nickname?

The Puritans had a thing or two to say about nicknames, Robert Bolton in particular. He spoke of 'Puritan' as "the honourable nickname of the best and holiest men" (Mr. Bolton's Last and Learned Worke of the Foure Last Things (1635), p. 12).

Robert Bolton, A Discourse About the True State of Happinesse (1631), p. 163:

I am persuaded there was never poor persecuted word, since malice against God first seized on the damned angels, and the graces of heaven dwelt in the heart of man, that passed through the mouths of all sorts of unregenerate men, with more distastefulness and gnashing of teeth, than the name of puritan doth at this day; which notwithstanding as it is now commonly meant, and ordinarily proceeds from the spleen and spirit of profaneness and good fellowship, as an honourable nickname, that I may so speak, of christianity and grace.

Elsewhere he is reported to have said:

All those nick-names of Puritan, Precisian, Hypocrite, &c. with which lewd tongues are wont to load the saints of God, are so many honourable badges of their worthy deportment in the holy path, and resolute standing on the Lord's side.

Samuel Rutherford, Letters (1894 ed.), p. 512:

I assure you, howbeit we be nicknamed Puritans, that all the powers of the world shall not prevail against us.

George Gillespie, English Popish Ceremonies (1846 ed.), Vol. 1., p. 39:

...they make godly and zealous Christians to be mocked and nicknamed Puritans, except they can swallow the camel of conformity....We know the old Waldenses before us were also named by their adversaries, Cathares or Puritans; and that, without cause, hath this name been given both to them and us.

In the tradition of David, the "sweet Psalmist of Israel," many individual Reformers, Puritans and Reformed have been known to contemporaries and to posterity by nicknames dubbed and bequeathed by both admirers and opponents. Here are a handful to consider.

Thomas Adams, English Puritan (1583-1652) -- "prose Shakespeare of the Puritan theologians"
William Ames, English Puritan (1576-1633) -- "Learned Doctor Ames"
William Bates, English Puritan (1625-1699) -- "Silver-Tongued"
Richard Baxter, English Puritan (1615-1691) -- "Chief of English Protestant Schoolmen"
Wilhelmus à Brakel, Dutch Puritan (1635-1711) -- "Father Brakel"
John Bunyan, English Puritan (1628-1688) -- "Immortal Tinker" and "Immortal Dreamer"
Jeremiah Burroughs, English Puritan (1600-1646) -- "Prince of Preachers"
Richard Cameron, Scottish Covenanter (1648-1680) -- "Lion of the Covenant"
Thomas Cartwright, English Puritan (1535-1603) -- "Father of English Presbyterianism"
John Cotton, English-American Puritan (1585-1652) -- "Patriarch of New England"
Samuel Davies, American Presbyterian (1723-1761) -- "Apostle of Virginia"
David Dickson, Scottish Covenanter (1583-1662) -- "Apostle of the Covenant"
John Duncan, Scottish Presbyterian (1796-1870) -- "Rabbi Duncan"
Jonathan Edwards, American Puritan (1703-1758) -- "America's Greatest Theologian" and "Last Puritan"
Hans Egede, Danish-Norwegian Lutheran (1686-1758) -- "Apostle of Greenland"
John Eliot, English-American Puritan (1604-1690) -- "Apostle to the Indians"
Bernard Gilpin, English Reformer (1517-1583) -- "Apostle of the North" and "Northern Apostle"
William Gouge, English Puritan (1575-1653) -- "Father of the London Divines" and "Arch-Puritan"
John Howe, English Puritan (1630-1705) -- "Platonic Puritan" and "Puritan Plato"
John Kennedy of Dingwall, Scottish Presbyterian (1819-1884) -- "Prince of Highland Preachers"
John MacDonald, Scottish Presbyterian (1779-1849) -- "Apostle of the North"
Thomas Manton, English Puritan (1620-1677) -- "King of Preachers"
Stephen Marshall, English Puritan (1594-1655) -- "Geneva Bull"
Joshua Moody, English-American Puritan (1633-1697) -- "Angelical Doctor"
James Nalton, English Puritan (1600-1662) -- "Weeping Prophet"
John Owen, English Puritan (1616-1683) -- "Prince of the Puritans"
William Perkins, English Puritan (1558-1602) -- "The Calvin of England"
John Robinson, English Separatist (1575-1625) -- "Pastor of the Pilgrim Fathers"
Richard Rogers, English Puritan (1550-1618) -- "Enoch in His Age"
Thomas Shepard, English-American Puritan (1605-1649) -- "Soul-Melting Preacher"
Richard Sibbes, English Puritan (1577-1635) -- "Heavenly Doctor Sibbes"
Henry Smith, English Puritan (1560-1591) -- "Silver-Tongued Smith"
Charles Spurgeon, English Baptist (1834-1892) -- "Prince of Preachers"
Solomon Stoddard, American Puritan (1643-1729) -- "Northampton Pope" and "Pope of Connecticut Valley"
Willem Teellinck, Dutch Puritan (1579-1629) -- "Father of the Dutch Further Reformation"
Pierre Viret, Swiss Reformer (1511-1571) -- "Angel of the Reformation" and "Smile of the Reformation"
John White, English Puritan (1575-1648) -- "Patriarch of Dorchester" and "Founder of Massachusetts"
John Wycliffe, English Reformer (1385-1384) -- "Morning Star of the Reformation"

All God's Creatures

A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel. (Prov. 12.10)

Cecil Frances Alexander, All Things Bright and Beautiful:

All things bright and beautiful,

All creatures great and small,

All things wise and wonderful,

The Lord God made them all.

While conscious of the distinction between Man and Beast (Jesus said, "Ye are of more value than many sparrows," Matt. 10.31), Puritans vehemently opposed the idea that the dominion of Man over the creatures of the earth gave license to abuse animals. In opposing certain popular sports of the day, such as bear-baiting, cockfighting, and the like, they took occasion to note that all of God's creatures, including those that men employ lawfully for their service and benefit, are also precious in His sight. Far from the fantastic notions of animal rights or even superiority over humans held by PETA, the Puritans were nevertheless counter-cultural in pioneering the basis for animal protections theologically and legislatively. The first codified animal protections in American jurisprudence are found in the Puritan Massachusetts Body of Liberties (1641), authored by Nathaniel Ward.

Of the Brute Creature
Liberty 92.
No man shall exercise any Tyranny or Cruelty toward any brute creature which are usually kept for man's use.

Thomas Edwards, Gangraena (1646), I.17:

...God loves the creatures that creep upon the ground as well as the best Saints; and there is no distance between the flesh of a Man, and the flesh of a Toad.

John Flavel, Husbandry Spiritualized (1669), Part III, Chap. II, Upon the hard labour and cruel usage of Beasts, in Works, p. 166 (a poetic meditation concerning a poor, overworked horse):

What hath this creature done, that he should be
Thus beaten, wounded and tir'd out by me?
He is my fellow-creature;

Robert Bolton, General Directions for a Comfortable Walking With God (1625, 1991, 1995), p. 179:

Bathe not thy recreations in blood; refresh not thy tired mind with spectacles of cruelty. Consider the rule which divines give about recreations, that we must not make God's judgments and punishments of sin, either upon man or beast, the matter or object of them. Now, the best divines hold, that enmity amongst themselves was a fruit of our rebellion against God, and more general judgment inflicted upon the creature after the fall. Which misery, coming upon them by our means, should rather break our hearts and make them bleed, than minister matter of glorying in our shame, and vexing those very vexations which our impiety hath put upon them. Alas, sinful man, what a heart hast thou, that canst take delight in the cruel tormenting of a dumb creature! Is it too much for thee to behold with dry eyes that feaful brand which only thy sin hath impressed upon it; but thou must barbarously, also, press its opressions, and make thyself merry with the bleeding miseries of that poor, harmless thing, which, in its kind, is much more, and far better, serviceable to the Creator than thyself?

Philip Stubbes, The Anatomie of Abuses in England (1583, 1879), Part 1, pp. 177-178, 182:

For is not the baiting of a Bear, besides that it is a filthy, stinking and loathsome game, a dangerous and perilous exercise?...What Christian heart can take pleasure to see one poor beast to rent, tear, and kill another, and all for his foolish pleasure? And although they be bloody beasts to mankind, and seek his destruction, yet we are not to abuse them, for his sake who made them, and whose creatures they are. For notwithstanding that they be evil to us, and thirst after our blood, yet are they good creatures in their own nature and kind, and made to set forth the glory and magnificence of the great God, and for our use; and therefore for his sake not to be abused. It is a common saying amongst all men, borrowed from the French, Qui aime Iean, aime son chien; love me, love my dog: so, love God, love his creatures.
...
If necessity, or want of other meats, inforceth us to seek after their lives, it is lawful to use them, in the fear of God, with thanks to his name; but for our pastimes and vain pleasures' sake, we are not in any wise to spoil or hurt them. Is he a Christian man, or rather a pseudo-Christian, that delighteth in blood?

Of Periwigs and Puritans

When one views 17th and 18th century portraits it is apparent that at least some Puritans wore powdered hair or wigs, and the modern stereotype of a stern Puritan magistrate wearing a wig (often imagined presiding over a witch trial) is powerful, vivid image in our minds today. The modern European custom of wearing periwigs, or wigs for short, developed in France in the 1620s when King Louis XIII, who was going bald, began to wear a wig. Likewise in England, it was during the Restoration with the royal patronage of King Charles II that male wigs became popular. Before this, Queen Elizabeth I and Mary, Queen of Scots, had both employed them, but the practice became a symbol of social status for men in Restoration-era England. Samuel Pepys recorded in his diary the first time he wore a wig to church in 1664: "I found that my coming in a periwig did not prove so strange as I was afraid it would..."

But while the custom caught on quickly, there were those among the Puritans who opposed it. William Prynne took an early stand in 1628 when he wrote that "the wearing of counterfeite, false, and suppositious Haire, is utterly unlawfull" (The Unlovelinesse of Lovelockes). The Scottish Covenanter John Carstares wrote in his preface to the reader to James Durham's Practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments (1665, 2002):

To over-costly, curious, vain and conceity dressing and decking of the body, and setting of the hair now after one mode, now after another. (Wherein, as in other vanities, many men, somewhat unmanning themselves, do now contend with women, partly by their unnaturally nourished long hair, and horrid bushes of vanity, as Mr. [Robert] Bolton calls them, and partly by their variously and strangely metamorphosing modes and colors of periwigs) --

James Durham goes on to say further (quoting Robert Bolton again at one point), pp. 334-337:

And therefore we say that in men and women both, there is condemned by the Lord:
...
2. Strangeness in the ever-changing fashions, and extravagant modes of apparel; whileas the Lord by nature has continued the shape of men's bodies to be the same. For what is meant else by strange apparel, so often forbidden in Scripture, but that which is commonly called the fashion, or new fashion, a new and uncouth garb?...There is a lightness in clothing as to color, mounting as they call it, etc, and in dressing of the body, which may be seen in these dressings of the hair, powderings, laces, ribbons, points, etc, which are so much in use with gallants of the time; this, especially in women, is insisted on and condemned (Isa. 3:16-17, etc.) Some things indeed there mentioned are not simply unlawful, especially to persons of higher quality, and at all times; but the following particulars are condemned....

There is in clothes a base effeminateness amongst men (which someway emasculates or un-mans them) who delight in those things which women dote upon, as dressing of hair, powderings, washing, (when exceeded in) rings, jewels, etc, which are spoken of, and reproved in the daughters of Zion (Isa. 3), and so must be much more unsuitable to men. Also interchanging of apparel is condemned; men putting on women's, and women men's clothes, which is unsuitable to that distinction of sexes which the Lord hath made, and is condemned in the word, as a confusion, an absurd, unnatural thing, and an inlet to much wickedness. Whereof the Dutch annotators, as several fathers did long before them, on 1 Cor. 11:14, make men’s nourishing and wearing of long hair to be some degree, it being given to women, not only for an ornament and covering, but also in part for distinction of the female sex from the male.

And here, having touched a little on this vain dressing of the hair (now almost in as many various modes as thee are fashions of apparel), especially incident to women; it will not be impertinent to subjoin a strange story, which learned, pious, and grave Mr. Bolton, in his Four Last Things, p. 40, repeats from his author the famous Herculus Saxonia, professor of physic in Padua:

The Plica (saith he) is a most loathsome and horrible disease in the hair, unheard of on former times, as morbus gallicus, and fudor anglicus, bred by modern luxury and excess; it seizeth especially upon women, and by reason of a viscuous, venomous humour, glueth together, as it were, the hairs of the head, with a prodigious ugly implication and entanglement, sometimes taking the form of a great snake, sometimes of many little serpents, full of nastiness, vermin, and noisome smell: And that which is most to be admired, and never eye saw before, these being pricked with a needle, they yield bloody drops. And at the first spreading of this dreadful disease in Poland, all that did cut off their horrible and snaky hair, lost their eyes, or the humour falling down upon other parts of the body, tortured them extremely. It began first, not many years ago, in Poland, it is now entered into many parts of Germany. And methinks (says Mr. Bolton) our monstrous fashionists, both male and female, the one for nourishing their horrid bushes of vanity, the other for their most unnatural and cursed cutting their hair, should every hour fear and tremble, lest they bring it on their own heads, and amongst us in this kingdom.

And John Eliot was one who viewed afflictions upon New England society as attributable in part to God's wrath against men wearing wigs, and prayed against the practice.

Convers Francis, Life of John Eliot, the Apostle to the Indians (1836), pp. 322-323:

Mr. Eliot had a few whims, to which he was pertinaciously attached. One of these was an unsparing hostility to the practice of wearing long hair and wigs. He could not endure it; he regarded it as an iniquity not to be tolerated. The man, and especially the minister of the Gospel, who wore a wig, he considered as committing an offence, not only against decency, but against religion. His zeal about "prolix locks" was warm, but unavailing. He lived to see the practice prevail in spite of his remonstrances, and at last gave over his warfare against it with the despairing remark, "The lust has become insuperable!" The readers of New England history will remember, that in 1649 an association was formed, and a solemn protest published, against wearing long hair, by Governor Endicot and the other magistrates.

In this punctiliousness we see the influence of sympathy with the English Roundheads carried even into trifles. In England periwigs were permitted quietly to cover the head soon after the restoration of Charles. But for more than thirty years after that time, they were deemed by many a sore grievance in New England. Gradually during that period they were coming into use; but they need all the authority derived from the practice of such divines as [John] Owen, [William] Bates, and [Joseph] Mede, to find protection at last. The intolerance they experienced from Mr. Eliot was not, therefore, a singularity in the good man; he only persevered in his stern hostility against them longer than many others.

In 1675, as a response to the devastating consequences of the King Philip's War, the General Court of Massachusetts legislated against the sin of pride in wearing wigs:

Whereas there is manifest Pride openly appearing amongst us in that long Hair, like Womens Hair, is worn by some men, either their own or others Hair, made into Perewigs: And by some Women wearing Borders of Hair, and their Cutting, Curling, and Immodest laying out their Hair; which practice doth prevail and increase, especially among the younger sort.

This Court doth Declare against this ill custome as Offensive to them, and divers sober Christians amongst us, and therefore do hereby exhort and advise all persons to use moderation in this respect; And further do impower all Grand juries to present to the County Court such Persons, whether Male, or Female, whom they shall judge to exceed in the Premises; and the County Court being authorized to proceed against such Delinquents either by Admonition, Fine, or Correction, according to their good discretion.

Increase Mather, likewise, saw the wrath of God poured out against men wearing wigs and took note of them in a sermon following the burning of Boston, Burnings Bewailed: in a Sermon, Occasioned by the Lamentable Fire Which was in Boston, Octob. 2, 1711. In which the Sins which Provoke the Lord to Kindle Fires, are Enquired into. (1711):

Monstrous Perriwigs, such as some of our Church-Members indulge in, which make them resemble ye Locusts that come out of ye bottomless Pit. Rev. ix. 7,8, -- and as an eminent Divine calls them, Horrid Bushes of Vanity; such strange apparel as is contrary to the light of Nature and to express Scripture. I Cor. xi. 14, 15. Such pride is enough to provoke the Lord to kindle fires in all the towns in the country.

However, his son "Cotton Mather first wigged in 1691" (Bruce C. Daniels, Puritans at Play, p. 198) and defended the practice against those "who preached against an innocent fashion, taken and used by the best of men."

Cotton Mather's chief opponent on this score was Samuel Sewall, whose opposition to periwigs, as recorded in his diary, is legendary. He himself did wear a skull cap in his old age to keep his head warm, but he inveighed against the rising custom of wearing wigs in his day with great fervency. His diary (Vol. 1, p. 342) records his opinion of one sermon by Cotton Mather on hypocrisy:

In his proem said, Totus mundus agi histrionem. Said one sign of a hypocrit was for a man to strain at a Gnat and swallow a Camel. Sign in's Throat discovered him to be zealous against an innocent fashion, taken up and used by the best of men; and yet make no conscience of being guilty of great Immoralities. 'T is supposed means wearing of Perriwigs: said would deny themselves in any thing but parting with an opportunity to do God service; that so might not offend good Christians. Meaning, I suppose, was fain to wear a Perriwig for his health. I expected not to hear a vindication of Perriwigs in Boston Pulpit by Mr. Mather; however, not from that Text. The Lord give me a good Heart and help to know, and not only to know but also doe his Will; that my Heart and Head may be his."

One authority he cited against the practice was a sermon by Vincent Alsop, which appeared in the Cripplegate Morning Exercises, "What Distance Ought We to Keep, in Following the Strange Fashions of Apparel, Which Come Up in the Days Wherein We Live?", published in Puritan Sermons, 1659-1689, Vol. 3, pp. 488-530, and appended to the Soli Deo Gloria edition of Vincent Alsop's Practical Godliness: The Ornament of All Religion. While acknowledging that social status is lawful factor in the selection of one's apparel, Alsop saw little to no value in the use of wigs. Alsop even quoted Increase Mather against their use, which was likely known to Sewall.

INFER. II. All youthful periwigs and paintings, which are sinful in youth, are doubly sinful in the aged. (p. 507)
...
How do our gallants expect reverence, if not adoration, for their whistling silks and ruffling periwigs; and that all should rise and bow to their state, port, and grandeur! Thy silks and periwigs are but excrements; and the latter, perhaps, of one that died of the foul disease, or at the gallows. Tertullian nips this humour severely: Ne exuvias alieni, forsan immundi, forsan nocentis et gehennae destinati, sancto et Christiano capiti suppares.* "O, do not," says he, "wear on thy sacred and Christian head the hair of another, perhaps some foul-diseased fellow, perhaps one that was a malefactor and is now in everlasting burnings!"

* Tertullianus De Cultu Feminarum. (p. 513)
...
I know, both paintings and periwigs have their palliations and excuses: --

(1.) They that ruffle in their waving perukes, and look like the locusts that "came out of the smoke of the bottomless pit," whose "faces were as the faces of men, and they had hair as the hair of women," (Rev. ix.8;) do plead that they wear them upon good advice, for their health's sake, to divert catarrhs, to prevent consumptions.

ANSWER (i.) And is it indeed so, that the nation is become almost one great hospital? Are the generality of men among us just dropping into consumption? Then what other lust, what debauchery, has introduced a sinful necessity, and then taught them to plead it? But is it not evident, that the corruption is much larger than the pretended occasion? (ii.) But if cutting off the hair be in some degree useful for that end, are periwigs therefore so? Can no other thing substitute for the place of hair, but such a vanity? (iii.) But if this vanity be any ways useful, what does the curling contribute to it? and what does the change of the colour conduce to that effect? Is it no colour but one contrary to the natural, that will do the deed? Or if it must be so, what does the immoderate length signify to that end? How much more ingenuous had it been, to have confessed the sin, and yet persisted in it, than to palliate it with such slender, thin excuses? (pp. 526-527)

Solomon Stoddard also took a hard line against wigs in a letter to Samuel Sewall dated July 29, 1701:

I cannot condemn them universally. Yet there is abundance of sin in this country, in wearing wigs. Some cut off their hair, because it is red or gray; some, because it is straight; some, frizzled; and some, because it is their own. Some of the wigs are of an unreasonable length, and generally they are extravagant as to their business. They are wasteful as to cost. The wearing of them is pride, to make a vain show. It is contrary to gravity -- is light and effeminate. It makes the wearers of them look as if they were more disposed to court a maid than to bear upon their hearts the weighty concernments of God's kingdom.

There were those Puritans then who viewed wigs as an innocent fashion, and those who saw them as unnatural, effeminate, and vain, mixed with much that is sinful. Although we see some Puritans wearing them in portraits, even the Mather family itself was divided on the practice, and, lest we fall into stereotypes, we should recognize that not all Puritans approved of wigs, and some argued vehemently against them, with some nuances not to be overlooked (and I have here quoted from the opponents of wigs more extensively for the purpose of breaking that stereotype). Fashions are curious things, and while it is fashionable to view the Puritans as monolithic, the periwig controversy of the 17th and 18th centuries shows otherwise.

Consider the Cost

Robert Bolton, Heart Surgery (originally published in 1631 as Helps to Humiliation, also published with The Four Last Things: Death, Judgment, Hell, and Heaven), p. 7:

2. Consider how hard a thing it is to get pardon for sin, in that the justice of God was hard to be satisfied. Imagine all the world were turned into a mass or lump of gold, the stones of the streets into precious pearls, and the sea and rivers all flowing with liquid streams of the most pure gold, they would not satisfy the wrath of God for the least sin, Mic. 6. 7. If all the angels and creatures in heaven and earth had joined together, and made one fervent prayer for man's sin; even if they had offered themselves to be have been annihilated, it could never have been effected. Nay, if the Son of God Himself should have supplicated His Father with most earnest entreaties, He could not have been heard unless He had taken our flesh upon Him, and suffered what devils and men could imagine to inflict upon Him. Which, well considered, is infinite cause to bring us to a sense of God's wrath, that He should lay and suffer such infinite torments to be on Him, that He cried out unto God, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Though He loved Him infinitely as Himself, yet He would have His justice satisfied.

All Things Shall Be Made Known

1 Cor. 13.12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Robert Bolton, The Four Last Things: Death, Judgment, Hell, and Heaven, p. 115 (on heaven):

We shall clearly see and comprehend the vanity and rottenness of all heretical cavils, antichristian depths, popish imposture, the very bottom of that most wicked and abhorred mystery; the true, full, and sweet meaning of all God's blessed book; whether Job's wife bid her husband bless or curse God; whether Jephthah sacrificed his daughter, or only consecrated her to virginity; whether Naaman was a true or unsound convert; what is the meaning of that place, 1 Cor. xi. 10; and that, 1 Cor. xv.29, &c.