Lampstand Press
Company Tapestry of Grace Community Store

Home » Community » The Forum

Email us! These forums are a great place to get answers to your questions or discuss the content of Tapestry of Grace. Please use the suggestion button (left) to send us your ideas for ways that we can improve this program!
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
-star Rating Rate It!  Login/Join 
Posted
In the introduction to Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, the editor mentions that Puritans removed baptismal fonts from churches. I'm trying to figure out if they did this because they didn't believe in infant baptism or if it was the fonts themselves.

Thus far, everything I find online appears to indicate they practiced infant baptism. (And I am aware the editor of the book may have gotten this detail wrong.) So then I'm curious about why they didn't like fonts.

Anybody know the answer to this puzzle?


Pat
"The first qualification for judging any piece of workmanship from a corkscrew to a cathedral is to know what it is — what it was intended to do and how it is meant to be used."
C.S. Lewis
"One of the major flaws in some forms of reader-response criticism is that they tend to ignore the compact between author and audience, overlook that the author had some purpose and information to convey when he wrote the document, and assume that it is the reader who can and must decide what sorts of things, including what sort of meaning, one can derive from a text."
Ben Witherington III
http://blog.beliefnet.com/bibleandculture/
 
Posts: 558 | Registered: 06 July 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Posted Hide Post
I am not sure either, tell you the truth. You're right that they did practice infant baptism, so the only thing I can surmise (if indeed the editor is correct) is that the fonts may have been ornate affairs that Puritans associated with Popery.


Blessings,
Marcia

No one can do me a greater kindness in this world than to pray for me.
--Charles Spurgeon
 
Posts: 3862 | Location: Maryland | Registered: 15 April 2002Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Posted Hide Post
Thanks Marcia!

I did find something here:
http://www.exlibris.org/nonconform/engdis/puritans.html

quote:
Some issues of disagreement between the Church and the laity were referred to as adiaphorastic , or "in their own nature indifferent". Issues were argued based on their lack of biblical authority. If something was not mentioned as necessary in the Holy Bible, its value and authority would be called into question. Rather than being ignored as "indifferent" some sought to use the negative argument as a positive vehicle to remove offending items which they found contrary to their own values or belief.

Some of these adiaphorastic areas might included: clerical dress and vestments; kneeling for prayer or communion; the use of the sign of the cross; use of the baptismal font; the use of altar rails; the placement of and the composition of an altar (or Holy Table); the use of the organ and of non-congregational singing.


Pat
"The first qualification for judging any piece of workmanship from a corkscrew to a cathedral is to know what it is — what it was intended to do and how it is meant to be used."
C.S. Lewis
"One of the major flaws in some forms of reader-response criticism is that they tend to ignore the compact between author and audience, overlook that the author had some purpose and information to convey when he wrote the document, and assume that it is the reader who can and must decide what sorts of things, including what sort of meaning, one can derive from a text."
Ben Witherington III
http://blog.beliefnet.com/bibleandculture/
 
Posts: 558 | Registered: 06 July 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
  Powered by Eve Community