Scht: Balancing Head and Heart in Seventeenth Century Puritanism: Stephen Charnock's Doctrine of the Knowledge of God

By Larry Siekawitch

An examination of the doctrine of God in the theological construction of Stephen Charnock, exploring his use of reason and his commitment to experiential faith.

This study explores Charnock's doctrine of the knowledge of God to discover his contributions to the Restoration English Puritan understanding of a balance of head and heart. Charnock paved a distinctive trail in the midst of diverse paths the Restoration Puritans were taking, but he also maintained certain characteristics, which were common to the Puritan way.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Authentic Publishers
• Release date: Jul 8, 2014
• ISBN: 9781780783505

Book preview

tolerance.

CHAPTER ONE

STEPHEN CHARNOCK (1628-1680)

1. Biographical Introduction

There is very little written by way of biography on Charnock. William Symington’s Life and Character of Charnock1 and James M’Cosh’s Introduction to Charnock’s Works are the two main extant resources.2 Both Symington and M’Cosh seemed to have leaned heavily on John Johnson’s funeral message for Charnock as well as Richard Adams and Edward Veal’s preface to Charnock’s works.3 Bishop Parker mentions Charnock in his History of His Own Time4 and A.G. Matthews includes a brief sketch of his life in Calamy Revised.5 A good but brief modern biography can be found in an article written by Richard Greaves in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.6 Charnock was born in London and entered Emmanuel College, Cambridge in 1642 receiving his B.A. in 1646 and his M.A. in 1649. Apparently while pursuing his M.A. he ministered in Southwark and then went to Oxford where he was incorporated Master of Arts and then in 1652 became Senior Proctor. In 1656 he went to Ireland, serving under Henry Cromwell, Protector of Ireland. At the restoration of Charles II in 1660 he was no longer able to minister and so moved back to London, traveling to France and Holland periodically for the next fifteen years. In 1666 his library was destroyed in the fire of London. In 1675 he co-pastored with Thomas Watson at a Presbyterian church in Crosby Hall, where he ministered until his death in 1680.

There are two important discrepancies in his life: was Charnock an Independent or Presbyterian? And was Charnock involved in a conspiracy in Ireland? As to the first question, Richard Greaves refers to him as a moderate Independent.7 While in Oxford Charnock attended church with Thomas Goodwin, Thankful Owen, Francis Howel, Theophilus Gale, and John Howe; most of these were independents with Howe the notable exception. It should be noted that in the seventeenth century (and the eighteenth) there was considerable fluidity in respect of what we would call denominational allegiance. Ministers of the ‘three denominations’ would float between them as they felt called. Charnock is later implicated in the Blood Plot where Thomas Blood and others attempted to seize Dublin Castle in April 1663. Most of those involved in the plot were Presbyterians, not Independents. But was Charnock involved? Most of the information appears to have come from Bishop Parker’s history, a history antagonistic toward Presbyterians. Parker portrays Charnock as fleeing to London under the alias of Clark where he exercis’d great authority at London amongst the Fanaticks, and long presided in a large Conventicle; for he did not die till two years after, anno 1683.8 There are too many discrepancies in this account to hold it as true. We know Charnock traveled extensively to France and Holland from 1660-1675 and then for five years co-pastored a Presbyterian congregation with Thomas Watson at Crosby hall in London. He died July 27, 1680 not 1683. M’Cosh suggests he was deeply influenced by the Thirty Year War and his biographers all describe him as quiet, mild mannered with a peaceable disposition. It seems incredible to think he was involved in a poorly conceived attempt to take over the government.

Two possible scenarios unfold. Either Charnock was involved in the Blood Plot and later abandoned his political attempts of reform or he never was involved.9 If he was an Independent earlier in life, it appears he changed to Presbyterianism. He seems to have been influenced by both Baxter10 and Howe and adopted their broader Calvinist outlook with the Presbyterian desire for comprehension in the restoration Church of England, rather than toleration. He preached with his friend Edward Veal at a Presbyterian church on Wood Street in Dublin after the restoration. A portion of a Presbyterian congregation wanted to secure him as joint pastor with Thomas Jacombe to succeed Lazarus Seaman, but John Howe was selected instead. He then pastored a Presbyterian church at Crosby Hall for five years along with the Presbyterian Thomas Watson. It would seem he had abandoned any possible connection with moderate independency in favor of moderate Presbyterianism.

2. Influences on Charnock

Because of the tremendous changes taking place in seventeenth century England and the peculiar situation of Charnock, several influences on his life need to be understood in order to evaluate his peculiar doctrine of the knowledge of God. In reviewing his life and works, especially the copious citations of authors within his works, we can discern three major influences on his beliefs: Puritanism, the Cambridge Platonists and the School of Saumur. These three inspirations helped shape what we will call a latitude puritan disposition.

a. The Puritans

There are two major puritan influences that directly relate to Charnock’s doctrine of the knowledge of God: The elevation of the affections and the puritan use of the scholastic method.

i. The Affections

We have seen the puritan inclination toward an experimental/experiential faith, which Charnock wholeheartedly affirmed and propagated. Later we will see how his attention to the affections will protect him from a sterile intellectualism and fill out his doctrine of the knowledge of God. Along with the rest of the restoration puritans,11 Charnock found himself in a similar situation as Perkins in the previous century. Just as the experiential writings of Perkins and Sibbes became especially powerful once the political impulse was thwarted, the same was true of the restoration puritans and Charnock was no exception. Throughout his writings a deep felt love for God is revealed and an unapologetic appeal to experiential Christianity encouraged. He exhorts his readers: Let us have as strong affections of love and joy, as the devils, by their knowledge of God as discovered in Christ, have of horror and hatred…. Let the motions of your will, and the affections of your soul, rise according to the elevation of your knowledge of God in Christ.12 Puritan writings were saturated with references to the affections and their importance in the Christian life. How did the affections become so prominent especially in restoration puritanism? It would appear that John Calvin influenced the puritans greatly and their peculiar situation in history helped these ideas to flower into something new. They quote Calvin often and extensively adopt his doctrine of union and communion.13

The reformers and the puritans for the most part held to a dichotomist understanding of the nature of humanity as being composed of body and soul. The spirit and the soul were not seen as separate entities but rather are used synonymously for the most part.14 Calvin resisted the complexity of the scholastics, holding to a simplified understanding of the soul as an immortal though created essence, which is his nobler part.15 It inhabits and animates the body as well as regulates its conduct. It is an incorporeal substance made up of two faculties: intellect and will, which continue after the body dies. To see how Calvin’s view may have effected the puritan understanding, it will be helpful to look at Calvin’s understanding of the faculties of the soul and whether he should be considered a voluntarist or an intellectualist.

Calvin held to the traditional faculty psychology of Aristotle and, like the other reformers, embraced the two faculties of mind and will. The faculty of the will included the inclinations and affections, and the heart was very often seen as synonymous with the will.16 He did not tend to delve into the intricacies of the philosophers but he did know their distinctions; he simply thought their complexities were more harmful than helpful even if true.17 T.F. Torrance notes:

Calvin obviously makes an entire break from the Scholastic conception of creation and existence, particularly in the case of man. It represents a return to the essentially dynamic conception of God’s relation to the world which we have in the Bible, but which mainly under the influence of Aristotelian thought had been translated into a logical and static relation of being.18

In discussing Calvin’s anthropology in regard to the faculties of the soul the question arises as to whether Calvin was an intellectualist or a voluntarist? According to Thomas Aquinas the will is subordinate in function to the intellect and so the intellect had priority over the will; this became known as intellectualism.19 Duns Scotus opposed Aquinas and saw a priority in the will, which became the view of voluntarism.20 R.T. Kendall adds to the definition of voluntarism the area of faith saying that voluntarism is the idea of faith as an act of the will in contrast to a passive persuasion in the mind.21 When one reads Calvin, it at first appears that he was an intellectualist. He says in the Institutes: The understanding is, as it were, the leader and governor of the soul; and that the will is always mindful of the bidding of the understanding, and its own desires awaits the judgment of the understanding.22 In his commentary on Ephesians he states, "Now, the mind holds the highest rank in the human constitution, is the seat of reason, presides over the will and restrains sinful desires.23 His definition of faith also reveals an element of passivity rather than an act of the will.24 As Richard Muller points out, Calvin held to an intellectualist stance in regard to temporal priority.25 But the issue is not as cut and dried as it might seem. Calvin himself resisted these kinds of categories because of his anti-speculative approach to theology and his disdain for scholasticism.26 Muller suggests that Calvin held to a temporal priority of the mind but a causal priority of the will. The will is able to accept or reject the knowledge the intellect presents to it and therefore is prior in causality.27 In his commentary on John, Calvin sees faith as synonymous with receiving Christ and states, by faith they obtain this glory of being reckoned the sons of God.28 He even went so far as to say, Faith regenerates us, so that we are the sons of God."29 The will takes an active part in receiving Christ.

It can also be shown that for Calvin a value priority would fit the voluntarist category because he believed it was more valuable to move the heart than the head. Knowledge is a means to the end of love and worship.30 In discussing true and false believers he said:

For it is a doctrine not of the tongue but of life. It is not apprehended by the understanding and memory alone, as other disciplines are, but it is received only when it possesses the whole soul, and finds a seat and resting place in the inmost affection of the heart.31

He stated the chief part of faith is that firm and steadfast constancy of heart.32 In speaking of a speculative faith only in the head he noted:

And here again we ought to observe that we are called to a knowledge of God: not that knowledge which, content with empty speculation, merely flits in the brain, but that which will be sound and fruitful if we duly perceive it, and if it takes root in the heart.33

In his commentary on the Psalms he said, For as our affections rise in rebellion against the will of God, so faith, restoring us to a state of humble and peaceful submission, appeases all the tumults of our hearts.34 And in his commentary on 1 John For faith is not a naked and a frigid apprehension of Christ, but a lively and real sense of his power, which produces confidence.35 In all of these quotations we see that for Calvin faith was never intended to simply be notitia but rather should also stir the heart, which is the end of faith rather than simply filling the head. This emphasis, which qualifies him for the voluntarist camp, is magnified in the puritans.

Charnock held to the traditional faculty psychology concerning the soul, but a change should be noticed in the structure of the faculties. Whereas for Calvin and Aquinas36 there were two main faculties (mind and will or cognitive and appetitive) with divisions within the two, the restoration puritans began to develop a more complex faculty psychology. The standard categories for the soul became the understanding, the will and the affections. William Perkins was a transitional figure in that he held to the two faculties of mind and will, placing conscience in the mind and affections in the will. He saw the mind as prior to the will saying the understanding is the more principall part, serving to rule and order the whole man and therefore it is placed in the soule to be as the wagginer in the waggin.37 He said, Faith is a supernaturall gift of God in the minde and The place and seate of faith (as I thinke) is the mind of man not the will.38 It is quite clear that he saw some priority of the mind to the will and should be considered an intellectualist in some sense. But like Calvin he also saw faith as an action that apprehends and applies Christ with all his merites unto himselfe.39 Though he pointed out two principal faculties of the soul he did call conscience a faculty within the same writing.40 In his Golden Chaine he pointed out five faculties: mind, memory, conscience, will and affections,41 and elsewhere described the three faculties of mind, will and affections.42 The affections became prominent in his writings and so could be seen as a value priority. William Ames also saw intellect, conscience, will and affections as the parts or faculties of the soul.43 John Owen opted for three: mind, will and affections.44

Thomas Boston saw five faculties with three primary ones. In some sense the mind, will, affections, conscience and memory are seen as faculties of the soul.45 But he also referred to three main faculties as head, heart and affections,46 or mind, will and affections.47 And even when he mentioned the five faculties he indicated some kind of subordination of conscience and memory to the threefold cord of mind, will and affections.48 For Boston faith is an act of the mind and will, and the affections, though subordinate to the mind, are what God longs to move through faith. In The Marrow of Modern Divinity written by Edward Fisher, but published with notes by Boston, he