Notice the real emphasis here, which is, on the one hand, the Anglicans and RCC emphasizing the innate goodness of man. And the Reformists, on the other hand, rather telling them that they ought to despair in themselves. The difference isn’t really between people who do good and who don’t do good, otherwise the Puritans wouldn’t be Puritans, but rather one side which denies the scriptuere wherein it says “there are none good, no, not one” and “all our righteousnessness are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, hath taken us away.” Those who deny these truths, are also the fastest to affirm that salvation can be won by the goodness they vainly believe exists in their hearts.
It occurred to me, when I read this article, that the Revolutionary War wasn't known as the "Anglican Rebellion". It was called the "Presbyterian Rebellion".
I think another aspect that often doesn't get enough attention is the role of the state and it's sanctioning of a church. It seems to me that other than the Presbyterians churches that were sanctioned by the state and integrated into being a part of the state all stressed institutional loyalty and liturgical traditions. It was the churches that were victims of persecution and in which membership was a voluntary choice that the emphasis was not on form, but on substance (Scripture). The Presbyterians seem to be the exception to the rule.
AM: thanks for posting. It's a thought provoking read.