William Ames And The Church’s Worship: A Puritan’s Analysis Of A “Contemporary” Question

By Jonathon D. Beeke

On the outdoor bulletin of the Presbyterian church situated across the street from my former residence reads the following bold advertisement: “Sunday Services: 8:45 a.m.—Contemporary; 10:30 a.m.—Vibrant Traditional; 5:45 p.m.—Alternative.” My purpose in quoting this advertisement is not to critique this particular church’s eclectic worship style; rather, I offer it as but one example of the contemporary solution to a perennial problem vis-à-vis worship. Depending on one’s preferences, a variety of worship styles—including or excluding drama, musical instruments, film, the sacraments, dance, scripture reading, and preaching—are currently offered in various churches and, as the above advertisement reveals, even within a particular church. These worship wars, however, are not unique to today’s culture. It is therefore the intent of this article to examine the English Puritans’ solution to this widely debated topic.

Although differences of opinion are evident within this seventeenth-century movement, I have chosen William Ames (1576-1633) as representative of the English Puritans’ views on worship. This choice serves a twofold purpose: 1) to fill a lacuna in secondary scholarship—Ames’s ecclesiology merely receives a passing glance in historiography—and 2) Ames’s explicitly voluntarist theology was arguably more consistent with his defense of the regulative principle of worship than was the implicitly voluntarist theology seen in other Puritans who also defended the regulative principle of worship. It is the contention of this article that Ames, convinced of the effective distinction between faith and observance, consistently defined the church as the elect of God wherein one’s will, as demonstrated in worship, is aligned with God’s revealed will; the church’s faith, he argued, is properly observant only when its worship models the express form articulated within scripture.

To demonstrate this, I will begin with a brief overview of the English Puritans’ attempts to reform the Anglican Church. I will then turn to Ames’s ecclesiology, situating his definition of the church within his twofold division of theology as well as his voluntarist emphasis. I will next examine Ames’s definition of worship and his defense of the regulative principle of worship, primarily concentrating on his Fresh Suit against Human Ceremonies in God’s Worship. [1] Finally, I will analyze the few references in secondary scholarship concerning Ames’s ecclesiology as well as offer some concluding remarks.

Historical Context

In 1535, Henry VIII declared himself as in terra supremum caput Anglicanae ecclesiae (on earth the supreme head of the English Church). [2] Beginning with this definitive break from Rome, the ensuing history of the Anglican Church was to be markedly different from the one witnessed by the continental church. Under the direction of vicegerent Thomas Cromwell and Henry’s successor, Edward VI, England took decisive steps toward Protestantism. In 1549, Parliament passed the Act of Uniformity, requiring all clergy to use the Book of Common Prayer drawn up by a commission headed by Thomas Cranmer. A second edition of the Book of Common Prayer, the joint work of Cranmer and Ridley (who were also assisted by Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr Vermigli), was published in 1552. [3] One year later, the Forty-two Articles of Religion were issued, serving as the basis for the later Thirty-nine Articles, which advocated a distinctly Reformed view of doctrine. Although Reformational theology slowly evolved within the Anglican Church, its liturgy and polity remained more Roman Catholic than Reformed. These vestiges of Catholicism —i.e., episcopacy and vestments—caused many within the Anglican Church to seek further reform.

Under the five-year reign of Mary Tudor (1553-1558), hopes of reform were severely diminished. Faithful to her mother, Catherine of Aragon, Mary was determined to restore Catholicism as it was before her half-brother Edward. Mary committed hundreds of Protestant leaders to the stake, of which the most famous were Latimer, Ridley, and Cranmer. [4] After Mary’s death, Elizabeth (Mary’s half-sister) ascended the throne, reigning for nearly half a century (1558-1603). New hope for reform arose as Elizabeth proposed a via media, that is, “a middle way” that was neither committed to Catholicism nor to Protestantism. As the 1559 Act of Supremacy and Uniformity once again established the English monarch as head of the Anglican Church, Elizabeth required all pastors to espouse Protestant doctrines—clearly evident in the Thirty-nine Articles of 1562—and Roman Catholic practices in their churches—evident in her revised edition of the Book of Common Prayer.

Puritan reform still remained unrealized under Elizabeth’s reign. Thus, when it became clear that James VI of Scotland would succeed as James I of England (1603-1625), the Puritans eagerly anticipated a final reformation as James was raised a Presbyterian. Once again, the Puritans were disappointed. Their Millenary Petition to James only provoked his adamant response, “No bishop, no king!” [5] Like the Elizabethan settlement, James upheld episcopacy, removing those opposed to his ruling. Under James, however, any hope of future reform was crushed. [6] With the accession of Charles I in 1625 and William Laud’s appointment as archbishop in 1633 (an avowed anti-Puritan), the pressures of conformity became even more severe. Many Puritans left for New England or the Lowlands, while others remained, only to be embroiled in the ensuing civil war.

Ames’s Ecclesiology

An understanding of the above historical context is important when studying Ames’s definition of the church. Unlike his Cambridge professor, William Perkins (1558-1602), whose life nearly spanned the more tenable Elizabethan via media, Ames was convinced a more definitive stance ought to be taken against the conforming practices of the Anglican Church. These convictions, formulated largely during the reign of James I, undoubtedly influenced Ames’s ecclesiology.

Ames’s conception of the church slowly evolved from his initial rejection of Anglican practices to his more mature Congregationalist polity. [7] Beginning in 1609, Ames disputed with Valentine Cary, refusing to wear the surplice in chapel as well as “hammer[ing] away” at Anglican ceremonies. [8] The first indication of Ames’s Congregationalism can be seen in his 1610 translation of William Bradshaw’s English Puritanisme. [9] At Leiden Ames entered into debates with Separatist John Robinson regarding church polity, thus further developing his Congregational ideals. [10] Though acknowledging the Church of England to be a true church, [11] Ames believed “the church instituted by God is not rightly national, provincial, or diocesan. These forms were introduced by man from the pattern of civil government, especially Roman.” [12] Rather, Ames argued that the instituted church was “parochial...[or] of one congregation; the members are united with each other and ordinarily meet in one place for the public exercise of religion.” [13] Nevertheless, Ames taught that particular churches should “enter into covenant relationship” with other churches, especially covenanting with neighboring churches. This in no way diminishes the authority the individual church possesses on Christ’s behalf, but only serves to “direct and promote that freedom and authority.” [14] Although Ames had left England—he voluntarily exiled himself to the Netherlands in 1610—he continued to critique the Jacobean structure of the church, believing Congregational polity better reflected scripture’s teaching.

Ames considered the church to be both the subject and effect of redemption. [15] He emphasized that a proper understanding of the church must first account for the redemption accomplished and redemption applied in Christ. Thus, Ames’s discussion of the church immediately followed his consideration of Christ’s humiliation/exaltation and the ordo salutis. The historical reality of redemption and its particular application therefore both creates and defines the church. These qualities, Ames wrote, are realized in the very name ecclesia: “The church is first of all constituted by calling, whence both its name and definition.” [16] With the label “called people” (hominum vocatorum), Ames assumed two fundamental requirements of the church: 1) the church is constituted within a covenantal context wherein the eternal election of God is the basis or cause of the church’s establishment, and 2) an individual does not constitute a church, but a church exists when a community of saints gather and profess their faith in Christ. [17] In other words, the word “called” denotes God’s covenantal election while the label “people” signifies the fellowship these elect have among themselves. God’s covenant with His church necessitates the saints’ covenant among themselves. [18] Based upon these assumptions, Ames could conclude, “The Church is the whole company and community of the elect” (italics added). [19]

One must not infer from this definition that Ames believed every person of a local church was an elect child of God. Following Augustine’s invisible/visible distinction, Ames divided his ecclesiology into two parts: the church mystically considered, and the church instituted. Since, as Ames wrote, “faith is the form [forma] of the church,” those who merely make an outward profession are mem­bers of the catholic church “so far as outward status is concerned. [But] in inward or essential status, they do not belong.” [20] Never­theless, Ames maintained that the particular instituted church is the place where God has promised specific blessings. “In a special way [God] is said to live and walk in the churches,” [21] and therefore Ames warned:

Those who have opportunity to join the church and neglect it most grievously sin against God because of his ordinance, and also against their own souls because of the blessing joined to it. And if they obstinately persist in their carelessness, whatever they otherwise profess, they can scarcely be counted believers truly seeking the kingdom of God. [22]

It is within the instituted church that one comes into contact with the “principal means of grace,” namely, the ministry of Word and sacraments. [23] In other words, Ames taught that Christ’s particular redemption takes place within the assembled church. [24]

Ames’s Division Of Theology And His Emphasis Upon The Will

Before examining Ames’s definition of the church’s worship, we must first understand his pedagogical division of theology and voluntarist emphasis; these two factors are inextricably united in his writings. According to Ames, theology consists of the two acts of fides (faith) and observantia (observance). Faith can be distinguished from observance in nature, but in use the two are inseparably joined together; thus, faith—defined by Ames as “the resting of the heart on God”—precedes observance—defined as the “submissive performance of the will of God for the glory of God.” [25] With this Ramist division, Ames argued that a person who neither rests his heart upon Christ’s redemptive work nor submissively and actively wills the glory of God—in this order—cannot be a child of God. [26] In short, if faith is absent, so also is true worship.

But the reverse was also true for Ames: if worship (or observantia) is absent, this is a sure sign that true faith is lacking. Ames’s point was not that Christians at all times and in every way fulfill God’s righteous demands; rather, he argued that faith’s work, as it is seated or takes place within one’s will, so alters the will (habitus) that it is impossible to be a believer and not actively desire God’s glory. [27] The fruit or effect of faith is therefore the alignment of one’s will with the will of God. Thus, Ames concluded, “Theology is the doctrine or teaching [doctrina] of living to God.” [28]

Ames’s Definition Of The Church’s Worship

If, as Ames taught, observantia was so essential for one’s salvation—not to be confused with one’s justification—then what did he regard as right observance? More specifically, what is the church’s required observance? Religious worship (cultus) occupied the core of Ames’s response. But what did he mean by this? Not surprisingly, Ames divided worship into two related components: natural and instituted worship. Natural worship “depends on the nature of God” and therefore humans can, with God’s grace, ascertain their creaturely duties “by [means of] proper contemplation.” [29] Ames pointed to the first of the Ten Commandments as an example of natural worship’s prescription. On the other hand, instituted worship is prescribed in the second commandment; as such, instituted worship furthers natural worship, not by contemplating God’s nature, but by adhering to the “free institution” of God. [30] In other words, natural worship is based upon who God is—“I am the Lord thy God...thou shalt have no other gods before me”—while instituted worship depends on what He voluntarily prescribes—“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.” The former is related to the latter as cause is to effect. Ames therefore wrote, “By the command of God instituted worship depends upon and flows from the primary [or natural] worship of God.” [31] Ames here recognized that God’s specific commands outlining how He desires to be worshiped stem from His nature. It was this distinction (natural and instituted worship) which allowed Ames to account for the continuity and development in worship.

In the church’s differing covenantal contexts, God has specified different modes or manners whereby He must be worshiped. [32] Thus, in the old covenant, God required the Sabbath to be on the seventh day of the week, but in the new covenant, the Lord’s Day must be observed on the first day of the week. Natural worship, explained Ames, requires us to devote one day to worship, but instituted worship defines which day: “Divine not human authority has now changed the last day of the week to the first day—only he can change the day of the sabbath who is the Lord of the sabbath, namely, Christ.” [33] Since the present church exists in the new covenant, Ames argued that its worship must comport with this covenant’s stipulations.

Ames’s Argument For The Regulative Principle Of Worship

Ames’s definition of instituted worship served as the basis for his argument concerning the regulative principle of worship. Nowhere is this argument more fully expounded than in his Fresh Suit, a critique of John Burgess and Thomas Morton. The last of his writings, written in 1633, this massive work represents the culmination of Ames’s view on worship. [34] This work’s thesis is best expressed in its preface:

The state of this warr is this: wee (as it becometh Christians) stand upon the sufficiency of Christs institutions, for all kynde of worship: and that exclusively, the word, (say we,) & nothing but the word, in matters of Religious worship. The Praelats rise up on the other side, & will needs have us allowe, & use certayne humane Ceremonyes of Religion in our Christian worship. We desire to be excused, as houlding them unlawfull. Christ we know: & all that cometh from him, we are ready to imbrace. But these human Cerem: in divine worship we know not. [35]

In short, Ames considered the regulative principle binding, which states, “With regard to worship whatever is commanded in Scripture is required, and...whatever is not commanded is forbidden.” [36]

Ames concluded that Burgess’s and Morton’s exegesis of Deuteronomy 4 and 12—“Thou shalt not adde any thing thereto”—was essentially the same as the Papists’; addition here merely meant addition of anything corrupt.37 Quoting Daniel Chamier, Ames dismantled this interpretation, arguing, “The bringing in of a Contrarie praecept is neither used for, nor can be called Addition, for in Addition both remaine, but contraries destroy each other.”38 In other words, this prohibitive command necessarily negates substantive additions. Ames furthered his argument stating that any addition to God’s prescribed order assumes to itself divine authorship; this, he said, was tantamount to lying and directly contrary to the ninth commandment. Thus, even though one may desire God’s glory in a certain action—Burgess had argued that kneeling to receive communion could be classified as proper worship if “we kneele not either, to man or to the bread, but to God directly, and [so] lift up his honour” [39]—this alone does not constitute proper worship. Against Burgess, Ames wrote, “Proper immediate worship, is any action done to the honouring of God immediately, and in that act it self, as are all such ordinances, which God hath appointed.” [40] Only in this way is our will aligned with God’s, ceasing to be “superstitious will-worship.” [41] In true worship a believer honors God’s will, denying his own; this, Ames held, was “theology as living to God.” [42]

Analysis

Although much has been written on the Puritans’ use of the regulative principle, Ames’s view of worship, as well as his ecclesiology, for the most part has been overlooked by secondary scholarship. Karl Reuter offered the most comprehensive and helpful analysis of Ames’s ecclesiology. Summarizing his findings, Reuter wrote:

Let us put in brief the standard features in the picture of the church which Ames wants to see converted into reality. For its form there is no other pattern than the will of God and Christ as set forth in Scripture. But Scripture knows only single church communities independent of state and ecclesiastical authorities. Each church community, in spite of a possible admixture of unbelievers, has faith as its foundation. This gives it its inner vitality and shapes the life of its members through the practice of a discipline which moves along Biblical lines. [43]

Although Reuter rightly acknowledged the connection Ames sought between faith and the church, he overestimated Ames’s Congregationalism. Reuter seems to deny the aforementioned Amesian emphasis on an inter-congregational covenant when he wrote, “A connectionalism established between single congregations or above them does not fit into the picture which Ames has of the church.” [44]

Furthermore, any discussion of Amesian worship is entirely missing from Reuter’s work. [45]

Stephen Brachlow’s study of Radical Puritan and Separatist ecclesiology, though focusing on Henry Jacob and John Robinson, does buttress this article’s thesis that Puritan ecclesiology was linked to soteriology, especially soteriological assurance. Brachlow notes, “Among the ecclesiologically minded militants [Ames included], this concern for scrupulous obedience to biblical law extended beyond the sphere of the private practice of godliness...to include public worship and discipline.” [46] Although Brachlow effectively disproves the common belief that separatism was ipso facto congregational and Puritanism ipso facto Presbyterian, at times he borders on conflating the radical Puritans with the Separatists. [47] These two movements, however, must be distinguished, especially in their ecclesiologies.

The few references in contemporary scholarship regarding Amesian ecclesiology and worship are far from any resemblance of an extensive study. [48] As worship wars persist to this day, one may be pleasantly surprised at the relevancy of Ames’s arguments. Thus, a reappraisal of Amesian worship will prove valuable for today’s church. His theology of fides and observantia, intimately connected to his definition of the church’s required worship, provided Ames a way of centering theology upon God’s will. As faith grants the believer a new will or disposition, observance demonstrates what this will looks like; its character, Ames maintained, centers upon a desire to worship God according to His desires. Thus, to the many worship wars of his day, Ames asked this question: “How would God have us praise Him?” Worship, according to Ames, must not concern itself with what I desire—whether this be a contemporary, traditional, or alternative worship service (however God-glorifying each of these may be)—rather, the called people of God submit in true worship, confessing “Thy will be done.”

Notes

1. William Ames, A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in Gods Worship or a Triplication Unto D. Burgesse His Rejoinder for D. Morton (Rotterdam(?): N.p., 1633).
2. Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity: Reformation to the Present, (New York: Harper & Row, 1975), 2:802.
3. Ibid., 807.
4. It was this persecution which earned Mary Tudor the nickname “Bloody Mary.” Cf. Justo González, The Story of Christianity: The Reformation to the Present Day, (Peabody: Print Press, 2004), 2:76-78. Latimer, Ridley, and Cranmer were all martyred at Oxford.
5. Erroll Hulse, Who are the Puritans? (Darlington, England: Evangelical Press, 2000), 47. The Millenary Petition derives its name from the belief that one thousand Puritans subscribed it.
6. Keith L. Sprunger, The Learned Doctor William Ames: Dutch Backgrounds of English and American Puritanism (Chicago: University of Illinois, 1972), 4-6. Sprunger describes this “middle span of Puritanism” as its “slough of despondency.”
7. Ibid., 193-200. Sprunger notes, “Further study and experience…carried Doctor Ames well beyond the implicit Congregationalism of 1614-15 into a more pure Congregationalism with greater stress on explicit covenants, autonomous congregations, and purified assemblies.”
8. Ibid., 17-22. Known for his anti-Puritan sentiments, Cary was appointed master of Christ’s College in 1609 by James I.
9. William Ames, trans., English Puritanisme Containing The Maine Opinions of the Rigidest Sort of Those That Are Called Puritans in the Realme of England (N.p., 1641), 4. Bradshaw wrote, “All such Churches or Congregations, communicating after that manner together in Divine worship, are in all Ecclesiastical matters equall, and of the same power and authority, and that by the Word and Will of God they ought to have the same Spirituall Priviledges, Prerogatives, Officers, Administrations, Orders, and Formes of Divine worship.”
10. In 1614, Ames wrote A Manuduction for Mr. Robinson, criticizing his Separatism, to which Robinson responded a year later with A Manumission to a Manuduction for Mr. Robinson. Robinson’s position was somewhat modified after Ames’s response, A Second Manuduction for Mr. Robinson. Cf. Douglas Horton, trans. and ed., William Ames by Matthew Nethenus, Hugo Visscher, and Karl Reuter (Cambridge: Harvard Divinity School, 1965), 42.
11. Of the English Church, Ames wrote, “[It] is to be called a reformed Church in regard to the main points of faith, which are purely and freely taught among us with public approbation.” Quoted in Sprunger, The Learned Doctor, 189.
12. William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, trans. John D. Eusden (1629; reprint, Boston: Pilgrim Press, 1968), I, XXXIX, 22.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid., I, XXXIX, 27-31.
15. Ibid., I, XXXI, 2. Ames wrote, “For [the church] is not first actually a church and later joined in union and communion with Christ; it is the church of Christ because it is united to Christ.”
16. Ibid., I, XXXI, 6.
17. Cf. Horton, Ames by Reuter, 101-102.
18. Cf. Ames, Marrow, I, XXXII, 14-16: “This bond is a covenant, expressed or implicit, by which believers bind themselves individually to perform all those duties toward God and toward one another which relate to the purpose [ratio] of the church and its edification.”
19. The Substance of Christian Religion: Or a Plain and Easy Draft of the Christian Catechism in LII Lectures (London: T. Mabb, 1659), 143-44. Ames wrote, “The Church hath her name rather from this calling, than from justification, sanctification, or glorification, unto which this accrues moreover, that by this meanes the company or community of actual believers is fitly designed, seeing that none are ordinarily called effectually, but such, as by actual faith answer that call.”
20. Ames, Marrow, I, XXXI, 11; I, XXXII, 11.
21. Ibid., I, XXXII, 27.
22. Ibid, I, XXXII, 28.
23. Ibid., I, XXXIII, 3-4. Ames noted that to these means of grace “some ecclesiastical discipline must be added.” Cf. also William Ames, De Conscientia, et Eius Iure, Vel Casibus (Conscience with the Power and Cases Thereof. Divided Into Five Bookes) (Amsterdam(?): n.p., 1639), IV, XXIV, Question 1, where in the response to the question, “Whether is a Beleever bound to joyne himselfe to some certaine particular Church?” Ames wrote, “Yes, by all meanes. In respect of the Covenant and promise of God: For those which are in the Church, are as it were directly under the blessings of God, to have them powred [sic] upon them” (italics added).
24. This is evident as Ames wrote, “So much for the subject of the application of redemption; now we consider the way of application” (italics added). Cf. Ames, Marrow, I, XXXIII, 1. This “way,” Ames went on to expound, is encompassed in the preached word (Ch. XXXV) and the sacraments (Ch. XXXVI).
25. Ibid, I, II, 4-5; I, III, 1; II, I, 1.
26. For more on Ames’s use of Ramism see Donald K. McKim, Ramism in William Perkins’ Theology, Theology and Religion, vol. 15 (New York: Peter Lang, 1987), 119-21.
27. Although faith causes one’s will to choose the good, Ames noted that Christians often struggle in this aspect. Thus, Ames acknowledged the progressive nature of sanctification as he wrote, “Now we shall make a progresse in Sanctification, 1. If we exercise our selves dayly to a more perfect denying of sinne, and of the world, and of our selves, and to a more earnest and serious seeking of God and his Kingdome, 2. If we have our end always in our eyes, 3. If we watch to the holy use of all those meanes which make to sanctification, and joine earnest prayer with them.” Cf. De conscientia, II, XII, 6.
28. Marrow, I, I, 1.
29. Ibid., II, V, 3.
30. Ibid., II, XIII, 1-3.
31. Ibid., II, XIII, 8.
32. As mentioned above, Ames closely connected the definition of the church with covenant. As Eusden notes, “Ames insisted that it was impossible to separate a knowledge of the covenant of grace from life within the church...so the church is discussed before the covenant, being the place where the covenant is grasped.” Cf. Eusden, “Introduction,” 55-56.
33. Ibid., II, XV, 27.
34. Sprunger notes, “The Fresh Suit is a vast and bitter work, printed in three parts in addition to a postscript and various prefaces, altogether over eight hundred pages.” Cf. The Learned Doctor, 243-44. Sprunger also notes that Cotton Mather attributed the “bitter preface” to Thomas Hooker.
35. Ames, “Preface” in Fresh Suit, h1–h2. It should not be assumed that Ames taught that every particular aspect relating to worship was inscripturated. Thus, in the Medulla Ames noted, “Outward circumstances are those which belong to order and decency. Such [outward] circumstances are place, time, and the like, which are adjuncts common to religious and civil acts. These circumstances are likely to be called by some religious and ecclesiastical rites and ceremonies, but they have nothing proper to religion in their nature. Religious worship is not found in them.” Cf. Marrow, II, XIV, 20-23.
36. R. J. Gore Jr., Covenantal Worship: Reconsidering the Puritan Regulative Principle (Philipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2002), 9. Critiquing this principle, Gore writes, “The important fact is that although the Puritan regulative principle has been found wanting, this does not mean that the Scriptures fail to give guidance in regards to worship. Surely the Puritan emphasis that worship should be regulated by the Word of God was on the right track. The Bible does provide parameters for acceptable worship. It does give guidelines for regulating the public, corporate worship of the church, and it does provide parameters for properly using those matters deemed indifferent.” Cf. ibid., 137. For William Bradshaw’s defense of the regulative principle see his Treatise of Divine Worship (Amsterdam: n.p., 1604), 1, quoted by Peter Lake, Moderate Puritans and the Elizabethan Church (Cambridge: University Press, 1982), 262-78. Bradshaw wrote, “It is a sin to force any Christian to do any act of religion or divine service that cannot evidently be warranted by the same.”
37. Ames, Fresh Suit, Part II, 115-16.
38. Ibid., 116. Quoting from Danielis Chamieri, Delphinatis Panstratiae Catholicae, siue, controversiarum de religione adversus Pontificios corpus, Vol. I, De Canone, (Geneva: n.p., 1626), Book 8, ch., 6.
39. Ames, Fresh Suit, Part I, 138.
40. Ibid., Part I, 135-36.
41. Cf. Ibid., Part II, 136-37.
42. Cf. above note 28.
43. Horton, Ames by Reuter, 224-25.
44. Ibid. Douglas Horton does—contra Reuter—recognize Ames’s “connectionalism” with other churches as he writes, “There are two wholes: the whole of the local church, of which the members are parts, and whose wholeness cannot with impunity be broken into from outside; and the whole of the great Church of Christ of which the various congregations are parts.” Cf. “Let Us Not Forget the Mighty William Ames” Religion in Life 29 (1960): 437.
45. Eusden’s overview on the church and magistracy in Amesian thought also surprisingly makes no mention of rightly constituted worship. Cf. Eus­den, “Introduction,” 55-61.
46. The Communion of Saints: Radical Puritan and Separatist Ecclesiology 1570-1625 (Oxford: University Press, 1988), 44.
47. Bracklow himself acknowledges that he began with Jacob and Robinson and “worked backwards, as it were, into the Elizabethan radical puritan environment.” Though noting this danger, Bracklow believes he has not given a “one-sided treatment of the sources.” Cf. Ibid., 7, 3.
48. Horton Davies’s work The Worship of the English Puritans (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1997) only cites Ames three times.