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.

Diary of a Puritan Noblewoman

Lady Margaret Hoby (née Dakins) (1571-1633) was married three times - first, in 1589 to Walter Deverux, who died in the seige of Rouen in 1591; secondly, in 1591 to Thomas Sidney (who died in 1595), brother of the poet Sir Philip Sidney; and third, in August 1595 to Sir Thomas Posthumous Hoby. On the third anniversary of her marriage to her third husband (in 1599) she commenced writing a spiritual diary, the first known diary written by an Englishwoman, and continued writing in it until at least 1605. She cared for the sick in her area as a nurse; her diary entries mention her labors in this regard, and in the management of her estate, as well as her private and public spiritual exercises. She was childless, except for a young female relative, who came to live with her, and her husband was absent often due to official duties and travel, but she oversaw the spiritual welfare of her servants as well. She mentions in her diary that she often (almost exclusively) sang psalms: for example, she "talked and song psalmes with divers that was with me"; and she "sang a psalme with some of the servants"; and in her husband's absence, she "practiced [her] voyce in the singing of psalms," likely from the Sterhold & Hopkins edition. She often read Scripture, wrote notes on her Bible reading, repeated sermons and lectures heard by the chaplain of the manor and at church twice on the Lord's Day, catechized her servants, and engaged in family and private devotions. She read the works of Puritans Richard Greenham and Nicholas Bownde, was a friend of William Perkins, and a patron of Nicholas Byfield.

Here are two representative extracts from her diary, which was not written for the public, but centuries later provides a window into the life of a Puritan noblewoman:

Tuesday, August 28, 1599

In the morning, after private prayer, I read of the Bible, and then wrought [embroidered] till 8 o'clock, and then I ate my breakfast; after which done, I walked into the fields till 10 o'clock, then I prayed, and not long after I went to dinner; and about one o'clock I gathered my apples till 4; then I came home, and wrought till almost 6, and then I went to private prayer and examination, in which it pleased the Lord to bless me; and beseeched the Lord, for Christ his sake, to increase the power of this spirit in me daily, Amen, Amen; till supper time I heard Mr. Rhodes read of [a book by the Puritan scholar Thomas] Cartwright, and soon after supper, I went to prayers, after which I wrote to Master Hoby, and so to bed.

The Lord's Day, November 18, 1599

After private prayer I went to Church, and when I came home, I praised God for his mercies there offered me. After I dined, I went to church again and heard catechizing and sermon; then I talked and sang psalms with divers that was with me, and after that I prayed privately and examined myself with what intergrity I had spent the day, and then went to supper; after that, to public examination and prayers, and so to bed.

Theodidactic

Theodidactic, or 'God-taught,' is a term which describes how the whole counsel of God, including the judicial laws delivered by Moses, whose force expired along with the state of Israel, except to the extent that they reflect the general equity of the moral law, can and should inform Christian magistrates seeking to rule with wisdom and discretion. George Gillespie wished, for his part, that the judicial laws, being a part of God's Word, "were more consulted with." William Gouge said that they "remain as good directions to order even Christian politics accordingly."

As to the whole counsel of God, the Westminster Divines teach that it provides all that we need for the life of man to be lived to God's glory, and yet some things "common to human actions and societies,... 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" (WCF 1.6).

The whole counsel of God, then, does not exclude the application of the light of nature and Christian prudence in the regulation of what is appropriate and common to human societies, but provides general rules which are always to be observed, even by Christian magistrates.

To explain further, I wrote the following in a chapter called "The Puritan Legacy Considered" at the conclusion of an essay by Dr. Steven Dilday on Postmodern Skepticism, Relativism, and Religious Toleration in the Light of the Westminster Standards and the Thought of George Gillespie, found in Steven Dilday, Two Essays on the Thought of George Gillespie (2009, ed., R. Andrew Myers), pp. 48-49:

And finally, this Biblical paradigm [the Puritan view of magistracy] is theodidactic,4 allowing for the employment of magisterial wisdom and discretion grounded in the whole counsel of God, rather than being confined to a blanket application of Mosaic law. As Gillespie noted:

I know some divines hold that the judicial law of Moses, so far as concerneth the punishments of sins against the moral law, idolatry, blasphemy, Sabbath-breaking, adultery, theft, etc., ought to be a rule to the Christian magistrate; and, for my part, I wish more respect were had to it, and that it were more consulted with.5

The judicial laws of Moses are indeed of great use to Christian magistrates today,1 being part of the whole of Scripture, all of which is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16); and, although they are no longer nomos/law, having "expired with the state of Israel" (WCF 19:4), they are still didache, that is, part of the teaching of the Word of God.

4. The contribution of Rev. Matthew Winzer to the understanding of this term is gratefully acknowledged.

5. Ibid [Aaron's Rod Blossoming], 2.

1. Judicial laws, grounded in moral equity, "remain as good directions to order even Christian politics accordingly." William Gouge, Commentary on Hebrews (London, 1655; Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2006, reprint of 1980 Kregel Publications ed. and 1866 Nichols ed.) vol. 1, 505.

That right discernment of judicial laws, as to what of general equity binds Christian magistrates today and what of that which was peculiar and temporary with respect to a nation whose polity has ceased does not, requires intimate acquaintance with the whole of counsel of God, goes without saying. Like Joshua, the Christian magistrate ought to "meditate...day and night" upon the whole of God's Word, including "the book of the law" that he might rule with wisdom and good success (Jos. 1.8).

That discernment is reflected in the Reply of Thomas Cartwright to the Answer to the Admontion to Parliament, as quoted by Archbishop John Whitgift in his Works, Vol. 1, p. 270:

And, as for the judicial law, forasmuch as there are some of them made in regard of the region where they were given, and of a people to whom they were given, the prince and magistrate, keeping the substance and equity of them (as it were the marrow), may change the circumstances of them, as the times and places and manners of the people shall require. But to say that any magistrate can save the life of blasphemers, contempuous and stubborn idolaters, murderers, adulterers, incestuous persons, and such like, which God by his judicial law hath commanded to be put to death, I do utterly deny, and am ready to prove, if that pertained to this question. And therefore, although the judicial laws are permitted to the discretion of the prince and magistrate, yet not so generally as you seem to affirm, and, as I have oftentimes said, that not only it must not be done against the word, but according to the word, and by it.

And in Cartwright's Second Reply he adds:

It is not that the magistrate is simply bound unto the judicial laws of Moses, that that he is bound to the equity, which I also called the substance and marrow of them.

Francis Turretin provides guidelines for the exercise of this discernment likewise, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 2, pp. 165-167:

Twenty-Sixth Question
Whether the judicial law was abrogated under the New Testament. We make distinctions.
...
III. In that law various ends must be distinguished....Undoubtedly those things are to be accurately distinguished which in the law were of particular right (which peculiarly applied to the Jews in relation to time, place and Jewish nation: such was the law concerning a husband's brother, the writing of divorcement, the gleaning, etc.) from those which were of common and universal right, founded upon the law of nature common to all (such as the laws concerning trials and the punishment of crimes widows, orphans, strangers and the like, which are of moral and common right). As to the former, they may well be said to have been abrogated because the Jewish polity having been taken away, whatever had a peculiar relation to it must also necessarily have ceased. But as to the latter, it still remains because it enters into the nature of the moral and perpetual law and was commanded to the Jews not as Jews simply, but as men subject with others to the law of nature. For distinguishing those things which are of common and particular right, a threefold criterion can be employed. (1) That what prevails not only among the Jews, but also among the Gentiles (following the light of right reason) is of common right. Thus the Greeks, Romans and others had their laws in which are many things agreeing with the divine laws (which even a comparison of the Mosaic and Roman law alone, instituted by various persons, teaches). (2) What is found to be conformed to the precepts of the decalogue and serves to explain and conform it. This is easily gathered, if either the object and the matter of the laws or the causes of sanctioning them are attended to. (3) The things so repeated in the New Testament that their observance is commended to Christians.

The Christian magistrate, therefore, as a minister of God (Rom. 13.4) -- like the minister of the Word who must rightly divide the word of truth (2 Tim. 2.15) -- must be informed by the Word of God, which generally is his rule, as it is of all Christians, according to the moral law; and as the judicial law is of special interest to magistrates as a divine exemplar, so it is to be referred to and "consulted with" as they provide "good directions to order even Christian politics accordingly," with appropriate distinctions made according to the "light of nature and Christian prudence." Hence, as the Apostle says, "For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope" (Rom. 15.4), and thus the judicial law too may teach us, and is therefore theodidactic, that is, not nomos, but didache.

Tennis in Worship

Puritans in general were opposed to antiphonal or responsive reading and singing in public worship. This practice found in Anglican churches to which they objected they likened to, in the words of John Cotton, "Tennisse Plaie." Along with the use of organs in worship, and other ceremonial trappings, Puritans saw antiphonal or responsive reading and singing as a mark of confusion and not edification.

John Field in A View of Popish Abuses (1572) lists as his 13th Anglican abuse:

In all their order of service there is no edification, according to the rule of the Apostle, but confusion, they tosse the Psalmes in most places like tennice balles....As for organes and curious singing, thoughe they be proper to popishe dennes, I meane to Cathedral churches, yet some others also must have them. The queenes chappell, and these churches must be paternes and presidents to the people, of all superstitions.

A confession of faith written by Field while imprisoned at Newgate in December 4, 1572 includes:

Concerning singing of psalms, we allow of the people’s joining with one voice in plain tune, but not of tossing the psalms from one side to the other, with the intermingling of organs

The Puritan authors of A Request of all true Christians to the Honorable House of Parliament (1586) wrote :

That all Cathedral churches may be put down, where the service of God is greviously abused by piping with organs, singing, ringing, and trowling of psalms from one side of the choir to another, with the squeaking of chauting choristers, disguised (as are all the rest) in white surplices; some in corner caps and filthy copes, imitating the fashion and manner of antichrist the pope, that man of sin and child of perdition, with his other rabble of miscreants and shavelings.

Increase Mather, A Brief Discourse Concerning the Unlawfulness of the Common Prayer Worship (1686) described Anglican worship services as consisting of:

broken Responds and shreds of Prayer which the Priests and People toss between them like Tennis Balls

Horton Davies, The Worship of the English Puritans, p. 68, explains the Puritan rationale:

Moreover, the responses of the people were stigmatized as 'vain repetitions' because of their reduplications. The Puritans frequently cited I Cor. xiv. 16 as a proof that only one person should speak at once, which appeared to them to veto congregational responses, with the single exception of the word Amen.[*]
...
It was felt therefore that all responds or responsive reading ('the tossing to and fro of tennis balls') was prohibited by the Word of God.

[*] Further to the view that normally (excepting extraordinary vows, and apart from congregational singing, and the congregation's "amen" at the end of a ministerial prayer or sermon) only the minister should be speaking during public worship, see Thomas Cartwright, The Reply to the Answer of the Admonition, Chap. 2, 21st Division, Sec. 2, p. 109:

For God hath ordained the minister to this end, that, as in public meetings he only is the mouth of the Lord from him to the people, even so he ought to be the only the mouth of the people from them unto the Lord, and that all the people should attend to that which is said by the minister, and in the end both declare their consent to that which is said, and their hope that it should so be and come to pass which is prayed, by the word "Amen;" as St Paul declareth in the epistle to the Corinthians, and Justin Martyr sheweth to have been the custom of the churches in his time.

And also, William Gouge, The Sabbath's Sanctification, pp. 3-4:

Question 11. What duties are done by the people?
...
(4.) Saying "amen" audibly to the blessing.
...
As for an audible pronouncing of "amen," if the minds of them that pronounce it have been upon that which the minister uttered, and their hearts have given consent thereto, it compriseth altogether as much as the minister hath uttered. This is the only warrantable means for people to utter their minds in a congregation. It must, therefore, be uttered by everyone, altogether, so loud, as the minister may hear their consent, as well as they hear what he hath uttered in their name. For the one is as requisite as the other.