J. William Black

already indicated, and others such as " 'Confessional' Presbyterian Divines," distinguished from "Moderate Presbyterian Divines" are often based on quite fine distinctions which may illuminate contemporary theological debates, but are seldom used to illuminate the wider disputes for which the period under discussion was notorious.That Francis White, Bishop of Carlisle from 1626, rejected transubstantiation but believed that "the bread and wine become instruments of grace, and the body and blood of Christ are present to the soul" (84) is surely an illuminating instance of why such positions were frequently misunderstood, and how they were so easily misrepresented in disputes within and beyond parliament.But it is difficult to see many beyond the most committed reading their way through this tightly focussed theological and sacramental study.Bryan Spinks clearly knows not only his theological disputants but also the historical context within which they were disputing very well, but refers to it very seldom.This book will attract a readership of informed church historians, but may appeal less to wider audience of seventeenth-century historians because, although it is a fascinating study, it almost unremittingly uninterested in making concessions to a wider audience.In brief, these two books are striking indicators of just how diverse the study of religious history has become by marking what must be very nearly the two end points on any continuum of such studies.Even where they do overlap chronologically, there is no overlap in subject or, apparently, interest.Whereas Marjo Kaartinen sets out to explore the "attitudes of English people toward religious life and toward religious people: monks, nuns and friars" (2) Bryan Spinks focuses on the "theologically articulate elite" (141), and their varied positions on the sacraments of communion and baptism.He does briefly discuss some views of Richard Baxter, even though he "was self-taught in theology" (121) and there is a hint of surprise that "[t]hough a radical, [Samuel] Rutherford was a leading theologian and political theorist" (121).In brief, if the focus of the first book is on attitudes of the English people, defined as broadly as possible, the focus of the second is almost exclusively on orthodox and universityeducated clergy, within the established churches.The first privileges imprecision, the second precision to almost equivalent degrees.It is easier to define the probable readership, however limited, for the second; but those of us who have grown up in a tradition which situates explicitly religious debates within a socio-political context and the symbiotic relationships between them will not find either of these works fully satisfying works

Citation · Epistemology · Ideal (ethics · Political science · Queen (butterfly · Sociology · Theology · Classics · History · Law · Medieval Literature and History · Philosophy · Reformation and Early Modern Christianity