Seventeenth-Century Puritans And The Synoptic Problem

By Michael Strickland

The Synoptic Problem (SP) is a classic puzzle of New Testament study which involves the relationship of the three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). While many consider the issues of the order of the gospels and whether or not one gospel served as the source for another to be of interest only to modern scholars, Protestants have been debating them practically since the beginning of the Reformation. In the seventeenth century, there were two popular opinions espoused regarding the interrelationships of the gospels. Those opinions are now referred to as the Independence Hypothesis, which maintains that the evangelists wrote without reading or copying other canonical gospels, and the Augustinian Hypothesis, which holds that Mark made use of Matthew’s gospel and that Luke made use of both. The purpose of this article is to consider the opinions of three prominent Puritan leaders in London in the middle 1600s.

The middle of the seventeenth century in Britain was full of political and religious turmoil. In the years before the English civil war began, leaders from the Church of England vied with nonconformist, or Puritan, leaders for control of congregations. The nonconformist ministers found themselves persecuted by the authorities of the church and crown in the 1630s, then later favored by Parliament in the late 1640s and 1650s, and ultimately ejected from their posts after the Restoration of the Crown of 1660. These tumultuous times were clearly evidenced in the lives of three nonconformist ministers of the age, Sidrach Simpson, Benjamin Needler, and Francis Roberts, each of whom, along with their views on the SP, will be considered in this article.

Sidrach Simpson (1600-1655)

William Laud, royalist ally of Charles I, was named Archbishop of Canterbury in 1633, and immediately set out to restrict the influence of the nonconformists in the Church of England. Laud exerted pressure by making it increasingly difficult for nonconformist ministers to offer lectures to congregations. These lecturers, who offered their sermons in the afternoons after official services, were paid by the congregation independently from the Church of England and were viewed by Laud as dangerous. During Laud’s tenure as Archbishop, many nonconformist ministers fled to the Netherlands where their views were more welcomed. One such minister was Sidrach Simpson, who had lectured at St. Margaret’s, New Fish Street Hill, London, beginning in 1629, but resigned his post in late 1637 or early 1638 and went to Holland where he began his association with the Independents, or Congregationalists. By 1641, just before the outbreak of the civil war, London became a safe place for Simpson to return, and he resumed his position at St. Margaret’s, New Fish Street Hill, as well as taking a new place lecturing at Blackfriars. Indicative of the religious change of fate the Puritans were experiencing at the time, in 1643, Simpson was chosen to participate in the Westminster Assembly of Divines, a select group of clergy chosen to help Parliament restructure the Church of England. While in Westminster, Simpson associated with Thomas Goodwin, Philip Nye, William Bridge, and Jeremiah Burroughes, and together the five voiced the Independent view of church hierarchy. These five were known as “The Five Dissenting Brethren,” because their views dissented from the majority Presbyterian voice in the Westminster Assembly of Divines. In 1650, Simpson was named Master of Pembroke Hall at Cambridge, though he continued preaching in London at St. Mary Abchurch.

In a sermon delivered in London, Simpson revealed some of his opinions concerning the origins of the synoptic gospels. The sermon was entitled “A Short and Excellent Treatise of Covetousness,” and in one section Simpson defended Paul’s assertion—“Covetousness which is Idolatry” (1 Cor. 6:10). As proof that Paul was not “in a heat or (sic) passion” when he made the statement, Simpson asked the congregation to consider the words of Jesus in Mark 7:22, “From the hearts of men arise Theft, Adultery, Covetousness, etc.” Simpson continued with this suggestion: “And it’s worth observation, That when the Evangelist Matthew doth repeat those words, he leaves out Covetousness: But when Mark came to add unto that which Matthew [15:19] wrote (which was the manner of the Evangelists to add unto others) he puts in Covetousness.”

Several conclusions can be reached from this paragraph. First, Simpson appeared to assume the priority of Matthew. Second, Simpson appears to have attributed Matthew with the choice of “leaving out Covetousness” when he was repeating Jesus. Third, Simpson considered Mark to be aware of Matthew’s written gospel by his statement that “Mark came to add unto that which Matthew wrote.” Fourth, Simpson implied his belief that such alterations were common in the Gospels, as evidenced by his statement that it “was the manner of the Evangelists to add unto others.” And fifth, Simpson did not refrain from mentioning his opinions out of concern that his congregation would be bothered by his conclusions. In fact, the statement appears to have been included in the sermon almost in passing while the preacher focused on a more important point about covetousness.

Benjamin Needler (1620-1682)

Of course, Simpson’s view was not the unanimous opinion of the clergy in London at that time. Benjamin Needler was also a nonconformist Puritan minister active in London before, during, and after the English Civil War, though, unlike Simpson, Needler advocated the Presbyterian system of church government. Like Simpson, his ministry was impeded by the political situation in England of the time. In 1641, Needler went up to St. John’s College, Oxford, but his education was interrupted when, in 1645, he was forced to leave due to the fact that Oxford had become the royalist capital. He eventually returned to Oxford and received a Bachelor of Civil Law degree in 1648. In that same year, Needler was chosen as rector of St. Margaret Moses in London, a position he occupied for the next fourteen years. It was during that time that Needler wrote Expository Notes with Practical Observations towards the opening of the five first Chapters of the first book of Moses called Genesis (London, 1654). Needler dedicated his “small manuall” to “the Parishioners of Margaret Moses, Friday Street, London” and listed his reasons for composition 1-4, which were: 1) That he, their pastor, “might be instrumentall to establish [them] in some of the truths of Christ in [those] erroneous dayes”; 2) That they “might be confirmed concerning the sweet harmony of the Scriptures, how one Scripture embraces and kisses each other,” though there were an unspecified many “who would make them to fall out, and mutiny”; 3) That they “might take notice of the obscurity of some texts”; and 4) That as long as he was allowed to live, he “might leave something in [their] hands which might be for [their] spiritual advantage.”

After concluding his notes on Genesis, Needler attached a list of thirty-six rules in “Directions for the understanding of the scriptures,” often with scriptural examples. His twenty-third rule, of particular interest to this study, states, “Althoughe we should find the holy Penmen of God differ from each other in things of a lesser import, or consideration, we should not from hence in the least scruple the divine authority of the Scripture.” In his explanation of this rule, Needler used the example of the different ordering of the temptations of Christ in Matthew and Luke. He first noted that, in a modern (seventeenth century) court of law, a man would not be accused of falsehood if he failed to give the chronological order of events unless he had specifically promised to do so. Likewise, though the order of the temptations differs in Matthew and Luke, “there is still an harmony” between them. At the conclusion of the section, Needler clearly revealed his opinion on the origins of the synoptic gospels: “Yea, some think that it is a good argument to prove the divine authority of the Scriptures, viz. that the Holy Penmen did not lay their heads together, about the framing of the Gospels, nor did they transcribe one anothers coppies; they agreeing in the maine and yet differing in things of lesser consideration.”

Like Simpson’s comment before, Needler’s statement reveals several components of his belief about the evangelists. First, just as Chrysostom had argued centuries before, Needler acknowledged that some interpreters consider the lack of collaboration, or “laying their heads together,” of the evangelists a good argument for scriptural authority. Second, this authority was displayed in the fact that the evangelists agreed on the important matters but not on the lesser details, which from the context appears to mean chronological order. Third, and taking the argument one step further than Chrysostom, Needler suggested that not only did the evangelists fail to collaborate, but that they also did not “transcribe one anothers coppies,” ruling out a dependency hypothesis. It may be that Needler included this clause because it was becoming more common for scholars to consider one gospel dependent upon another. Fourth, much as Simpson had done, Needler considered this subject an appropriate topic of consideration for his congregation. Needler’s and Simpson’s mention of synoptic issues in sermons opens up the possibility that the SP was being discussed by churchgoers in London during the turbulent years of the mid-seventeenth century, and that their pastors sought to influence their opinions.

Francis Roberts (1609-1675)

One of Needler’s older brethren in Presbyterian nonconformism was Francis Roberts, a graduate of Trinity College, Oxford, who first ministered in Birmingham until the Battle of Birmingham in 1643 (in the midst of the English Civil War), at which point Roberts narrowly escaped to London. In that year, Roberts was made rector of St. Augustine Watling Street, where he remained until 1650 when he took a position in Somerset. In London, Roberts joined Needler and other nonconformist signatories to the pamphlet A Vindication of the Ministers of the Gospel, in and about London (London, 1648), a document signed by Presbyterian ministers denying their role in the execution of Charles I.

It was during his seven years at St. Augustine that Roberts composed his seminal work, Clavis Bibliorum, The Key of the Bible in 1648. In the Epistle Dedicatory of Clavis, his stated purpose was to aid Christians in their duty to:

1) Know and understand the Holy Scriptures sufficiently. 2) To prize and esteem them highly. 3) To love them and delight in them exceedingly. 4) To study and search them accurately. 5) To believe them stedfastly. 6) To apply them to their own particular Cases and Conditions impartially. 7) To obey and practice them sincerely, entirely, and continually.

In this massive volume, Roberts detailed his views on the origins of the synoptic gospels, citing Chemnitz’s “learned observations” that the Apostle Matthew wrote first, nine years after the Ascension. Mark epitomized Matthew’s work a year or two later, though Mark insisted “more on the ordering and timing of things done.” Of the other synoptic evangelist, Roberts wrote:

Luke who wrote in the fifteenth year after Christ’s Ascension, having seen others writings, propounds to himself to write of things and that methodically…but in many things he shews the order of things in circumstances, and in most agrees with Mark (Whence Tertullian calls Luke’s gospel an orderly digesting of the Evangelical story) but sometimes things manifest in Matthew and Mark he puts not in their own place.

Roberts appears to have been a proponent of the AH, as Simpson was, making him the second Puritan minister to advocate the AH in London in the mid-seventeenth century, and the third (along with Simpson and Needler) to address the subject for the benefit of the layman.

The Synoptic Problem: A Matter Of Debate In Puritan London?

An intriguing question about this time is whether clergy were debating the issue of the SP in London, even at the time of great tumult in the church. That Roberts and Needler knew each other is almost certain, given that they were co-signers to the pamphlet A Vindication. Considering the proximity of their ministries, there is also the strong possibility that either or both of the men were familiar with Simpson, though there is no direct evidence. From 1641-1650, Simpson was preaching again at St. Margaret’s, New Fish Street Hill, and Needler began at St. Margaret Moses on Friday Street in 1648. Besides being the only “St. Margaret” churches in London, these buildings were very close to one another, as seen in the map below (Figure 2a). When Simpson began preaching at St. Mary Abchurch in 1648, his church was even closer to Needler’s, and all three of those churches were situated very near Roberts’s church, St. Augustine Wadley Street. The close proximity of all of these churches can be seen in the map below (Figure 2b).

Though St. Margaret Moses on Friday Street was destroyed in the Great Fire of London,1 and St. Augustine on Watling Street was destroyed in the Second World War,2 they were located practically around the corner from one another. The closeness of their proximity is easily seen on modern maps of London (see figure 2c), as well as the short distance (less than a quarter mile) from the church to St. Mary Abchurch, which still stands.


Figure 2a: Newcourt’s Map of London, drawn in 1658, facsimile by Edward Stanford 1863. The four dots near the center indicate the location of the churches under consideration. See Figure 2b below. The digital version is copyright © Sara Douglass Enterprises Pty Ltd 2006, and used by permission.


Figure 2b: Close-Up of the area near London Bridge with a key to churches. Indicated churches are underlined in the key. Adapted from Newcourt's map by permission.


Figure 2c: Map of modern London showing the proximity of St. Augustine on Watling Street, St. Margaret Moses on Friday Street, and St. Mary Abchurch on Abchurch Lane. Map made using Open Street Map, an open source mapping effort: http://www.openstreetmap.org

Thus, it is reasonable to assume that Simpson and Needler and/ or Simpson and Roberts would have at least been acquaintances, considering the proximity of their ministries for several years and their similar Puritan beliefs. Further, combining the almost certain acquaintance of Needler and Roberts with the fact that their churches were within earshot, it seems likely that they had occasional discussions. Whether they ever discussed their views of gospel origins is a matter of intrigue. Regardless, it is evident some Puritan ministers and churchgoers in mid-seventeenth-century London were aware of the SP and its related issues, with some advocating the AH and others the IH. It is also clear that Chemnitz’s Harmonia, though written in Latin and composed by a Lutheran on the continent, played a role in the shaping of the Puritan Roberts’s views on the SP. Though it appears that neither Needler nor Simpson produced any great theological works, Roberts’s Clavis was an influential work that continued to be used by ministers and scholars long after its publication, as seen by citations in 1790,3 1827,4 1836,5 and 1884,6 over 230 years after its initial publication.

Notes

1. Simon Bradley and Nikolaus Pevsner, London: The City Churches (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1998), 143.
2. Bradley and Pevsner, London: The City Churches, 61.
3. Thomas Oliver, A Full Refutation of the Doctrine of Unconditional Perseverance (London, 1790), 156.
4. The Christian Remembrancer, Vol. IX (Jan–Dec 1827), 14. No author cited.
5. Thomas Hartwell Horne, An Introduction to the Critical Study of the Holy Scriptures, vol. 2 (Philadelphia, 1836). Multiple citations.
6. Charles Augustus Briggs, Biblical Study: Its Principles, Methods and History (New York, 1883), 430.