‘Puritanism: the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.’¹ Although H. L. Mencken’s pithy witticism was written for comedic effect, the sentiment it expresses has come to characterise current scholarly and popular attitudes towards early modern Reformed Protestantism. However, Puritan theology and piety, important in the development of Christian traditions in the anglosphere, could offer something more to contemporary theological reflection than intellectual, emotional, and social tyranny. To provide a brief example of such an enterprise, this article will explore what the purpose of theology is for Lewis Bayly (1575-1631). Bayly was the Bishop of Bangor who wrote the immensely influential The Practice of Pietie (1612). It was an extremely popular devotional guide, reaching its 74th edition in 1821, being translated into French (1625), Welsh (1629), German (1629), Polish (1647), Massachusett (1665) and Romansch (1668) and becoming the most sold Reformed publication of the seventeenth century in the Netherlands.² Its international circulation was probably reflective of the book’s renowned power to impact its readers: John Bunyan’s conversion was begun through reading the text and George Gledstanes, episcopal minister of St Andrews Scotland, complained that The Practice of Pietie was turning ‘all the ladies in Scotland puritane,’ so that they supported the resistance to Charles I’s religious policies.³ Being widely read over a significant period of time, Bayly’s piety manual is a good representative of mainstream international Puritan thought.

The perception that Puritanism has little to offer Christian theology and spirituality has had traction even since its own day. Yet in the contemporary world, arguably the most influential intellectual interpretation of Calvinist religious experience was developed by Max Weber in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, (1904). Johan Goudsblom has argued that for Weber, Calvinism cultivated a religion of ‘constant self-control’ causing the ‘rationalisation of conduct within the world, but for the sake of the world beyond’. This was, in Weber’s view, due to the doctrine of predestination which, due to one’s salvation depending entirely on the decision of God, encouraged people to live godly lives as an outworking of their election, freed from the shackles of the Covenant of Works. Holy living included, for Weber, the repression of emotion. Reformed Protestantism was, for Weber, a religion attempting to destroy ‘spontaneous, impulsive enjoyment’ in the pursuit of godliness.⁴ 

The perceived suppression of pleasure, individuality, and imagination by early modern Protestants can perhaps explain why modern theology has largely abandoned Puritanism as a resource. While there has been resurgent interest in Patristic and Medieval Christian thought across the theological spectrum, study of early modern Reformed ideas and practice appear to be the domain of Calvinists, such as Oliver Crisp.⁵  Yet, recent studies have argued strongly that Puritan religion, informed by biblical, patristic, medieval, classical, and renaissance thought, was fundamentally a pursuit of ‘true happiness’.⁶ Though it had a severe, disciplinarian outlook, this was motivated by a desire to excise that which cannot be incorporated in an absolute and unconditional love of God as an end in Himself. For in doing so, they believed they could get ‘contentment’: possession of the supreme good, union and communion with God through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit, producing ravishing ecstatic enjoyment and satisfaction.

Consequently, the rest of this article attempts to briefly use Lewis Bayly’s The Practice of Pietie as a resource for theological reflection. Bayly’s work begins with a discussion of the nature of God. Bayly starts with this because, in his view, ‘true piety’ requires a ‘knowledge of God’.⁷  He puts forward a classical and orthodox account of God. The Divine is a perfect, simple essence with three persons, the Father, Son, and Spirit. Each person, united in one substance, is eternal, beginning and Being of beings, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, unchanging, simple, infinite, love, just, merciful, patient, holy, angry, and majestic.  Following Aquinas, Bayly acknowledged that language cannot ‘expresse the Essence of God’, as He is infinite and ineffable, but metaphorically refers to the Divine Nature.⁸

After expanding upon what these attributes are, Bayly explained to his audience why it is important to understand the nature of God and His attributes. He gave four reasons. First, it enables the Church to distinguish between the true God and idols. Second, to possess the Christian’s heart with awe, admiration, love, trust, fear, praise, and depend unconditionally upon God. Third, to encourage believers to imitate God in his attributes, so that we may display wisdom, love, goodness, justice, mercy, truth, patience, and zeal or anger against sin. Fourth, and in Bayly’s view most importantly, that in prayer and meditation they have a right understanding of the God they seek communion with. Crucially, to know God is not just to believe in propositions concerning God’s attributes. Rather, the only people who know God are those that ‘loveth him’. In fact, proper comprehension of God’s nature should move a person to love the Divine. Bayly writes ‘If therefore thou doest believe that God is Almightie, why doest thou… not confidently trust in God’. Again, if thou ‘beleevest that God is infinite, how darest thou provoke him to anger?’ Each attribute provokes a response: God’s simplicity should prevent us from living the double life of hypocrisy; God being the supreme good should prevent us from settling for worldly goods; the justice of God should cause repentance; God’s omniscience ought to spur us to place our moments of shame with Him; persuaded that God is true can remove doubt in His promises; and if we believe God is beauty and ‘Perfection itself,’ Bayly argued, we will be changed to take God as alone the chief end of all our ‘affections and desires’. In sum, God is all in all, and we will love God if we understand, partially at least, who and what He is. And vice versa, we can only know God if we love God. Failing to do so shows we do not sincerely believe or comprehend the nature of the Divine attributes.⁹ 

Theology’s central purpose, then, is to enable the elect to love God so that they might have ‘the communion of thy glorie, wherein only consists my soveraigne good and happinesse for ever’.¹⁰ Bayly’s conclusion is not a novel position. Yet the audience to which Bayly writes is indicative of a distinctive dimension of Puritan theology and practice. His text was written for a popular, lay audience. His was not a work destined for scholarly interrogation. Instead, it was intended to help all Christians, regardless of status, intellect, gender, and age, to know and love God, and in so doing find their perfection and contentment. Thus, the preserve of theology is not just for the academy. Neither is it solely for those in the ecclesiastical hierarchy or have been set apart in holy orders. Nor is it just for the special mystic, like Teresa of Avila or Ignatius of Loyola. It is for all who desire communion with God. And as this is open to all Christians given the priority of, in Calvinism, God’s irresistible grace, all Christians can and will receive fellowship with Christ. In the context of seventeenth century Europe, this was a revolutionary view, whose full implications would be carried to their logical extreme by radical groups like the Quakers. Theology is the means to true happiness, and all are called to pursue it.

Given that Macrina Magazine seeks to create an orthodox, intellectually rigorous community whose theology is impactful and accessible within a local and international context, the rationale of theology Bayly provided offers a useful resource and justification for such a project. Hopefully, early modern Reformed Protestantism play a vibrant role in the future of this exciting endeavour.