{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020664505672609402, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007293354943273906, 'mean_word_length': 5.531746031746032, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Society Ordained by God: English Puritan Marriage Doctrine in the First Half of the Seventeenth Century . By James Turner Johnson. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1970. 208 pp. $3.95.

This study illuminates developments in a historical period when, similar to our current day, traditional marriage practices and theories were undergoing major modification. Limiting his investigation to the period from 1600 until Milton's divorce tracts of the 1640s, Johnson concentrates upon the theology underlying Puritan marriage practice. The study initially analyzes the Puritan doctrine of covenant as the basis of a proper Christian marriage. Johnson contends that the Anglican theory of marriage followed a Catholic sacramental pattern, while the Puritan theory, analogous to the similar relationships of friendship, government, church, and business partnership, found its cohesion in covenantal patterns of responsibility. Relying on this covenant relationship, the Puritan could affirm "companionship between the spouses" as the primary end of marriage, while procreation thereby became a secondary end. Such a major reorientation of marriage theory allowed John Milton to cap the developing theory with an argument for the divorce of incompatibles. Given Johnson's limited scope, he has illustrated again that the early seventeenth-century Puritan leaders were producing a significant alternative theological choice for their fellow Englishmen. The book is well written and carefully documented. In detailing the Puritan progression of thought concerning marriage, Johnson is quite convincing; however, his argument weakens when he asserts the distinction of this argument from that of the Anglicans. No clear comparison of the two positions is offered, and Johnson's fleeting references to Jeremy Taylor's position only makes one suspect that careful investigation of more Anglican theologians might indeed produce similar positions. Some will also question the major weight he puts upon Milton's arguments since that position obviously is far more radical, as Johnson admits, than the usual Puritan position. For the stated purposes of the study the discussion of Milton occasionally becomes tedious, and throughout the work there is a distracting repetition of the arguments. These reservations should not detract from Johnson's significant contribution to our knowledge of the Puritan tradition and the insights these provide into the roots of modern marriage theories.