What do Protestants today think about the Puritans?

JohnB445 · Jan 22, 2026

Is something I have been wondering about.

DragonFox91 · Jan 22, 2026

Well not all people who call themselves Protestants think the same, but I think they were right

PloverWing · Jan 22, 2026

As @DragonFox91 said, Protestants are a varied bunch. I think most Reformed groups would find kinship with the Puritans.

I'm Episcopalian, and I think the Puritans were trying to "purify" too many things from the Anglican church, so it's for the best that we went our separate ways. But I also have ancestors who were New England Puritans (and later, Congregationalists), so I'm glad they made their way to Massachusetts.

ChubbyCherub · Jan 22, 2026

In what way?

I have recently met with Quakers and I understand where they are coming from with many things but not all.

David Lamb · Jan 23, 2026

DragonFox91 said:
Well not all people who call themselves Protestants think the same, but I think they were right

I agree that not all Protestants think the same about the Puritans. That being so, how can you believe that all of them are right?

Shane R · Jan 29, 2026

I think they were a product of a time and place that no longer exists. Their scholarship is filled with overly wooden Biblical exegesis. There legacy is predominantly of failure; their former strongholds are now some of the largest pockets of unbelief. So, you may have guessed, I don't have a lot of use for them except as an historical curiosity.

The Liturgist · Feb 5, 2026

ChubbyCherub said:
In what way?

I have recently met with Quakers and I understand where they are coming from with many things but not all.

Note that Quakers are not Puritans, although like Puritans they did consist of disgruntled Anglicans, albeit in the case of the Quakers, they were immediately schismatic,mwhereas for a brief period the Puritans remained in the C of E, resorting to political violence (the English Civil War) and emigration to New England when the C of E did not move in their preferred direction.

As a historical fact it is worth noting that Puritanism was obliterated and replaced by Congregationalist Calvinism - the Holier than Thou attitude of chaps like Increase Mather being shattered by the famous sermon of Jonathan Edwards, “Sinners in The Hand of an Angry God.” However, this was also unstable - in the 1780s most former Puritan churches in Boston, including the First Church and the Second Church, along with the university they established, the alma mater of Cotton Mather and Increase Mather, Harvard, became Unitarians as did many others such as the Old Ship Church in Rhode Island, the oldest church building in the Northeastern US.

These Unitarians later apostatized even more completely by rejecting Soccinianism or in some cases, Arianism, in favor of transcendentalism under the influence of Ralph Waldo Emerson and others, so that after its merger with the Universalist Church, the UUA, like the British Unitarians, became mostly post-Christian.

Thus during my time as a Congregationalist, my view of the Puritans was extremely negative.

bèlla · Feb 5, 2026

ChubbyCherub said:
I have recently met with Quakers and I understand where they are coming from with many things but not all.

Quakers are Anabaptists which includes related sects like the Amish and Mennonites. I would liken it to an ideology more than a denomination when compared to our perceptions of the same. It can be a standalone system of beliefs or integrated with others. For example, the Amish are usually more conservative but Mennonites come in different flavors from conservative to liberal.

I can be a Mennonite and feel at home in a Quaker setting because of the similarities. If you're coming from a different belief system the same holds true. Not that it's syncretic but their perspective on God and faith differs from the norm within christendom. They're more tolerant and less inclined to hold a my way philosophy. And their marriage ceremony is the loveliest I've seen. To the point where I'd want the same. It articulates the meaning of covenant wonderfully.

~ bella

The Liturgist · Tuesday at 5:04 AM

bèlla said:
Quakers are Anabaptists

That’s simply not true. The Anabaptist movement emerged in Germany in the 16th century Radical Reformation and was the first movement to practice credobaptism, hence the name (which means basically “re-baptizers”). The Quakers are a proto-Restorationist movement which originated in England in the 17th century, led by George Fox. Now Fox may have been influenced by Anabaptists, indeed he probably was, but his approach was far more radical - whereas Anabaptists believe in Baptism and the Lord’s Supper as ordinances to be practiced literally, Quakers reject this, instead believing in a spiritual inner baptism or inner Communion, that is to say, the Quakers who are still Christian, for many went past that point, following the idea of “The Inner Light” and “Waiting Worship” to a non-dogmatic extent wherein they embraced a transcendentalist approach similar to what happened with Unitarian Universalists.

Thus Quakers exist on a spectrum - there are some Evangelical Quakers who are doctrinally Christian, basically Evangelical, and in some cases have even implemented a literal (but usually optional) practice of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. While other Quakers are Christian but reject a literal observance of either sacrament. While still other Meetings of Friends, as Quakers call themselves, do not require Christian faith and purely adhere to the Inner Light, being like Unitarian Universalists but without ordained clergy or programmed worship in almost all cases (Evangelical Quakers on the other hand will have ordained clergy and programmed worship; whereas the other Christian Quakers I mentioned may only have “waiting worship” in which anyone may speak).

The Quaker rejection of literal sacraments unfortunately spread to the Salvation Army, the founder of which was a Methodist, but his wife was a Quaker, and she persuaded him not to have the literal observance of baptism or the Lord’s Supper in the praxis of the Salvation Army as a denomination, which is diametrically opposed to the views of John Wesley, who believed baptism was vital (if at times echoing a view that it was non-regenerative; he seems to have been unsure on this point or at least non-commital) and that Holy Communion should be received at least weekly - indeed he was one of the first Anglicans and certainly the first outside of the very high church group that included the Caroline Divines who believed the Lord’s Supper should be observed on at least a weekly basis; and also that Christians should fast on Wednesdays and Thursdays, and he desired the Methodists in North America to celebrate the Eucharist every Sunday and to pray the Litany (a service from the Anglican Divine Office) in church on Wednesdays and Fridays, but that didn’t happen; basically Methodism moved in a low church direction in opposition to the Protestant Episcopal Church with occasional high church parishes (whereas the Episcopalian norm became high church with low church exceptions) with Methodist worship heavily influenced by Presbyterian worship; with both churches experiencing a high church movement in the 20th century until the concurrent move in a liberal direction in some parishes and towards contemporary worship in others (and in some cases, both).

At any rate, the only thing Quakers and Anabaptists would agree upon is the unimportance of Infant Baptism, although Quakers might be less dogmatically opposed to it, if viewed as a sort of dedication ceremony, whereas an Anabaptist would likely oppose the baptism of an infant as being an affront to the idea of baptism.

@Ain't Zwinglian is particularly well informed on the topic of the origins of Credobaptism, although I don’t know if he has studied the Quaker movement as much as I have.

I have to confess I was actually very disappointed by Quakers - I had incorrectly envisaged Waiting Worship as a kind of sacred silence or meditative prayer, not unlike Eucharistic Adoration or Low Mass in Roman Catholic churches or in my own Orthodox tradition, the monastic recitation of the Psalms or the pursuit of Hesychasm, such as the communal recitation of the Jesus Prayer, sometimes in silence. I was shocked by reading the extent to which early Quakers actually objected to the sacraments on a literal basis, and by reading of Quakers disrupting Anglican worship, and of the anti-dogmaticism and emergent transcendentalism which went far beyond what one would expect from even hardline Pietists of the 18th century, but the Quakers, of the 17th century, were something different.

For more detailed information on the Quaker movement, see The Oxford Handbook of Quaker Studies, which contains of detailed essays on the beliefs, history and praxis of the Friends in their various forms from George Fox until the present, and which is in my library, along with the very good Oxford Handbook of Methodist Studies and certain related books (for example, they have one on the Book of Common Prayer which is exquisite - also the Oxford History of Christian Worship is splendid, offering a history of Christianity through its most visible expression, which can be more insightful in many respects than reading the entire epic nine volume Cambridge History of Christianity, which I also recommend. The Oxford books are also good in that the book on Methodism is written chiefly by Methodists, on Quakers chiefly by Quakers of different stripes, and so on (for as you’ll find, as I have alluded to here, the term “Quaker” now covers a diverse family of beliefs which are united through certain common practices concerning worship and fellowship; and could be classified as its own religion in that sense, one which overlaps with Christianity, which could be regarded as a diverse family of worship practices united by certain common beliefs (for purposes of Christian Forums, we rely on the Nicene Creed and the CF Statement of Faith, which adds important provisions which are implied in the Creed but not expressly stated, such as affirmation of the status of St. Paul as a legitimate Apostle and of his writings as divinely inspired Scripture, since unfortunately those who deny Paul are increasingly common and when one denies any of the Apostles of the canonical 27 book New Testament, problems arise (the most frequently rejected being St. Paul, St. John, and St. James the Just*, for their books contain the most doctrine in the case of St. Paul and St. John, whereas in the case of St. James some perceive a dichotomy, which is really a false dichotomy, between what he wrote and what St. Paul wrote, when really the two are complementary (as proven by a reading of Acts chapter 15, where we find no animus between them but concord, emergent from the Council of the Apostles, also including St. Peter and everyone else of note who was still alive and easily able to attend).

*Not to be confused with St. James the Great, the elder brother of St. John the Apostle, who was the first apostle to be martyred; conversely, St. John, the Beloved Disciple, is the only Apostle where we have no historical record of him having been martyred, the consensus among Early Church Fathers being that he alone reposed of natural causes rather than violently at the hands of the Romans, but he did endure exile to Patmos, where he received the Apocalypse (Revelation).

Ain't Zwinglian · Tuesday at 2:48 PM

The Liturgist said:
That’s simply not true. The Anabaptist movement emerged in Germany in the 16th century Radical Reformation and was the first movement to practice credobaptism, hence the name (which means basically “re-baptizers”). The Quakers are a proto-Restorationist movement which originated in England in the 17th century, led by George Fox. Now Fox may have been influenced by Anabaptists, indeed he probably was, but his approach was far more radical - whereas Anabaptists believe in Baptism and the Lord’s Supper as ordinances to be practiced literally, Quakers reject this, instead believing in a spiritual inner baptism or inner Communion, that is to say, the Quakers who are still Christian, for many went past that point, following the idea of “The Inner Light” and “Waiting Worship” to a non-dogmatic extent wherein they embraced a transcendentalist approach similar to what happened with Unitarian Universalists.

Thus Quakers exist on a spectrum - there are some Evangelical Quakers who are doctrinally Christian, basically Evangelical, and in some cases have even implemented a literal (but usually optional) practice of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. While other Quakers are Christian but reject a literal observance of either sacrament. While still other Meetings of Friends, as Quakers call themselves, do not require Christian faith and purely adhere to the Inner Light, being like Unitarian Universalists but without ordained clergy or programmed worship in almost all cases (Evangelical Quakers on the other hand will have ordained clergy and programmed worship; whereas the other Christian Quakers I mentioned may only have “waiting worship” in which anyone may speak).

The Quaker rejection of literal sacraments unfortunately spread to the Salvation Army, the founder of which was a Methodist, but his wife was a Quaker, and she persuaded him not to have the literal observance of baptism or the Lord’s Supper in the praxis of the Salvation Army as a denomination, which is diametrically opposed to the views of John Wesley, who believed baptism was vital (if at times echoing a view that it was non-regenerative; he seems to have been unsure on this point or at least non-commital) and that Holy Communion should be received at least weekly - indeed he was one of the first Anglicans and certainly the first outside of the very high church group that included the Caroline Divines who believed the Lord’s Supper should be observed on at least a weekly basis; and also that Christians should fast on Wednesdays and Thursdays, and he desired the Methodists in North America to celebrate the Eucharist every Sunday and to pray the Litany (a service from the Anglican Divine Office) in church on Wednesdays and Fridays, but that didn’t happen; basically Methodism moved in a low church direction in opposition to the Protestant Episcopal Church with occasional high church parishes (whereas the Episcopalian norm became high church with low church exceptions) with Methodist worship heavily influenced by Presbyterian worship; with both churches experiencing a high church movement in the 20th century until the concurrent move in a liberal direction in some parishes and towards contemporary worship in others (and in some cases, both).

At any rate, the only thing Quakers and Anabaptists would agree upon is the unimportance of Infant Baptism, although Quakers might be less dogmatically opposed to it, if viewed as a sort of dedication ceremony, whereas an Anabaptist would likely oppose the baptism of an infant as being an affront to the idea of baptism.

@Ain't Zwinglian is particularly well informed on the topic of the origins of Credobaptism, although I don’t know if he has studied the Quaker movement as much as I have.

I have to confess I was actually very disappointed by Quakers - I had incorrectly envisaged Waiting Worship as a kind of sacred silence or meditative prayer, not unlike Eucharistic Adoration or Low Mass in Roman Catholic churches or in my own Orthodox tradition, the monastic recitation of the Psalms or the pursuit of Hesychasm, such as the communal recitation of the Jesus Prayer, sometimes in silence. I was shocked by reading the extent to which early Quakers actually objected to the sacraments on a literal basis, and by reading of Quakers disrupting Anglican worship, and of the anti-dogmaticism and emergent transcendentalism which went far beyond what one would expect from even hardline Pietists of the 18th century, but the Quakers, of the 17th century, were something different.

For more detailed information on the Quaker movement, see The Oxford Handbook of Quaker Studies, which contains of detailed essays on the beliefs, history and praxis of the Friends in their various forms from George Fox until the present, and which is in my library, along with the very good Oxford Handbook of Methodist Studies and certain related books (for example, they have one on the Book of Common Prayer which is exquisite - also the Oxford History of Christian Worship is splendid, offering a history of Christianity through its most visible expression, which can be more insightful in many respects than reading the entire epic nine volume Cambridge History of Christianity, which I also recommend. The Oxford books are also good in that the book on Methodism is written chiefly by Methodists, on Quakers chiefly by Quakers of different stripes, and so on (for as you’ll find, as I have alluded to here, the term “Quaker” now covers a diverse family of beliefs which are united through certain common practices concerning worship and fellowship; and could be classified as its own religion in that sense, one which overlaps with Christianity, which could be regarded as a diverse family of worship practices united by certain common beliefs (for purposes of Christian Forums, we rely on the Nicene Creed and the CF Statement of Faith, which adds important provisions which are implied in the Creed but not expressly stated, such as affirmation of the status of St. Paul as a legitimate Apostle and of his writings as divinely inspired Scripture, since unfortunately those who deny Paul are increasingly common and when one denies any of the Apostles of the canonical 27 book New Testament, problems arise (the most frequently rejected being St. Paul, St. John, and St. James the Just*, for their books contain the most doctrine in the case of St. Paul and St. John, whereas in the case of St. James some perceive a dichotomy, which is really a false dichotomy, between what he wrote and what St. Paul wrote, when really the two are complementary (as proven by a reading of Acts chapter 15, where we find no animus between them but concord, emergent from the Council of the Apostles, also including St. Peter and everyone else of note who was still alive and easily able to attend).

*Not to be confused with St. James the Great, the elder brother of St. John the Apostle, who was the first apostle to be martyred; conversely, St. John, the Beloved Disciple, is the only Apostle where we have no historical record of him having been martyred, the consensus among Early Church Fathers being that he alone reposed of natural causes rather than violently at the hands of the Romans, but he did endure exile to Patmos, where he received the Apocalypse (Revelation).

No well versed in Quaker theology either. However, the Quakers had a profound and positive influence on eradicating the privatization of jails and prisons along with sanitariums.

During WW2 we had nation wide conscription along with the usual exceptions such as conscientious objection, etc of which the Quakers were part of. They were exempted from military service but not from civilian service. The Quakers served as jailors and orderlies and witnessed horrid conditions in prisons and sanitariums. They made formal complaints and one by one, privatization of these corrupt institutions were eliminated.

The Liturgist · Tuesday at 6:40 PM

Ain't Zwinglian said:
No well versed in Quaker theology either. However, the Quakers had a profound and positive influence on eradicating the privatization of jails and prisons along with sanitariums.

During WW2 we had nation wide conscription along with the usual exceptions such as conscientious objection, etc of which the Quakers were part of. They were exempted from military service but not from civilian service. The Quakers served as jailors and orderlies and witnessed horrid conditions in prisons and sanitariums. They made formal complaints and one by one, privatization of these corrupt institutions were eliminated.

And for that, I laud the Quakers. Of course, remember Anglo Catholics were also unsung heroes of reform in places like South London, working right alongside the Salvation Army.

It is chilling to think by the way that the prisons in Delaware in 1950s conducted floggings as well as forcing inmates to stand on an elevated platform - in Canada, the brutal strapping of inmates continued on a national and provincial scale into the 1960s. And in Singapore the use of corporal punishment is done in such a way as to constitute actual torture in my view, since the injuries inflicted on the likes of Michael Fay in the 1990s for an act of petty adolescent mischief better addressed through productive remedial labor constituted deep, permanent scarring. A level of violence which had elsewhere characterized such pillars of civilization as Apartheid-era South Africa.

So yes, I stand with the Quakers on quite a lot, but they were not the only voices in that chorus.

Also interestingly under the rule of St. Vladimir the Great and his heirs, after converting to Christianity, Kievan Rus, the ancestor state of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, had no capital punishment, which in Europe at the time was unheard of (things remained pretty good right up until the reign of Ivan the Terrible, whose name was not…undeserved, before getting worse under the hypocritical half-enlightenment of Peter “the Great” who imposed taxes on men with traditional beards. But at least if we look back to what ancient Christianity was like in sovereign states outside of the artificial bubble of the Frankish and Byzantine heirs to the Roman Empire quarreling with each other, we see in places like Kievan Rus, Edessa, Ethiopia, Armenia, Georgia, and elsewhere, real beauty.

bèlla · Thursday at 5:33 PM

A historical account doesn't always mirror the way a group lives or practices. And at the end of the day you aren't Anabaptist. Studying a culture isn't the same as living it or being in their presence. That's all I have to say on the issue.

~bella

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

What do Protestants today think about the Puritans?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Episcopalian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Priest

Traditional Liturgical Christian

❤️

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

❤️

Similar threads