Drama in the Meeting House: The Concept of Conversion in the Theology of William Perkins

By Mark R. Shaw

Scott Theological College, Box 49, Machakos, Kenya

One chilly February afternoon in 1935 in the cozy environs of a Beacon Hill townhouse, Samuel Eliot Morison turned the attention of the members of the Colonial Society to a young Harvard professor of American literature. The paper that Perry Miller proceeded to read laid down the general lines of interpretation that have dominated the discussion of Puritan theology in general and Puritan conversion theory in particular for several decades.[1] “The Marrow of Puritan Divinity” with eloquent boldness asserted that the Calvinism of Calvin which had its essence in an “inscrutable God” whose arbitrary will and decree takes man by storm had been whittled down to the pragmatic Yankee God of seventeenth-century Puritans by covenant theology:

Even if the specific doctrines of Calvinism were unchanged at the time of the migration to New England, they were already removed from pure Calvinism by the difference of tone and of the method. It was no longer a question of blocking in the outlines; it was a question of filling in the chinks and gaps, of intellectualizing the faith, of exonerating it from the charge of despotic dogmatism, of adding demonstration to assertion of making it capable of being ‘understood, known and committed to memory.’[2]

While he states that the process of theological decline does not occur until after 1630 he nonetheless follows the lines of English covenant theology back to William Perkins who “is in every respect a meticulously sound and orthodox Calvinist.”[3] Yet Miller finds seeds in Perkins’ morphology of conversion which began to enlarge man’s role in salvation at the expense of Calvin’s God who formerly “took the heart by storm.” Miller reports that, for Perkins,

man can start the labor of regeneration as soon as he begins to feel the merest desire to be saved. Instead of conceiving of grace as some cataclysmic, soul transforming experience, he whittles it down to almost the vanishing point: He says that it is a tiny seed planted in the soul, that it is up to the soul to water and cultivate it, to nourish it into growth.[4]

From this bad beginning, Puritan theology goes on to worse things, becoming scarcely discernible from certain strains of Arminianism by the time of Cotton Mather. Jonathan Edwards is seen as a theological Josiah, rediscovering decretal Calvinism and restoring it to prominence through his piercing treatises and sermons.

Is Miller right about Perkins? This article attempts to describe and evaluate William Perkins’ theology of conversion against the background provided by the Miller thesis and its recent advocates. After a discussion of current criticisms of Perkins’ conversion theory each of his steps of conversion will be described. The verdict that will hopefully emerge from our study is that Perkins’ theology stands faithfully in line with the Reformation and offers a reliable guide for today to those who would be both evangelical and Reformed in their proclamation of the gospel.

I. Recent Studies of Perkins’ Theology of Conversion

Though recent criticism has modified Miller’s thesis on Puritan covenant theology,[5] the suspicion that Puritan covenant theology is a corruption of Calvinism has lingered. Furthermore, Miller’s thesis has been pushed back from 1630 to further implicate Perkins as one of the architects of the corruption. Samples of this approach can be found in two studies by W. H. Chalker and R. T. Kendall respectively.[6]

1. The Criticisms of W. H. Chalker

Basic to Chalker’s critique of Perkins is his contention that the knowledge of God is only in Christ and is wholly gracious, “Christ,” asserts Chalker, “does not reconcile us to a God whom we previously knew to be angry with us.”[7] Thus every aspect of theology, from election to depravity, to faith and assurance have no independent status, indeed no content outside God’s grace in Christ:

It is important to note that Calvin is not at all interested in forming an independent doctrine of man or of sin…. The law, which convicts man of sin, likewise has no independent status…. Rather, for him the gracious redemption of Jesus Christ is the main theme, in which redemption of our sin is revealed, as a presupposition of it.[8]

Thus Calvin’s doctrine of total depravity is not what later Calvinists made of it, presenting man in so corrupt a moral condition that he is nothing but an object of God’s wrath in his natural state. This “does not do justice to the undoubted elements of virtue and good in the unregenerate man, which Calvin himself recognized….” Man is “totally” depraved only because in spite of his basic goodness “grace ‘totally’ undercuts all human righteousness and wisdom as based upon independence and self-will.”[9] Likewise faith and assurance are wholly gracious in their content for “the assurance of God’s favor…is itself an integral part of faith.”[10] This assurance “of which Calvin speaks is founded solely on the testimony of the promise in Christ, known in faith, and not at all on any confidence in man, in his faith, or in his works.” Since there is no possibility of “knowledge of ourselves as only helpless sinners, no knowledge of Christ as other than our Savior,” then asking ourselves whether we are saved is nonsense.[11] Mere awareness of the gospel constitutes certainty of experiencing the grace of the gospel. To know God as the predestinating God was “to know oneself as one predestinated to be saved by him.”[12] Having painted a picture of Calvin’s theology which has only grace in its system, he has much to criticize in Perkins’ theology of conversion. First, Perkins grounds his theology in predestination, not in Christ. Thus the possibility of one being non-elect exists for Perkins. This “failure” on Perkins’ part to imagine an absolute God ordering only wholly gracious decrees spells the beginning of trouble. Second, flowing from a wrong view of the God offering salvation, Perkins suggests that man as a sinner is prepared for grace by being humbled under the weight of his sin. He must “fall out of love with himself, nay hate and abhor himself and his own baseness; and…let him despair of his own salvation in or from himself.” Perkins takes away from grace in two ways, first by refusing to see that awareness of sin at all is a sign of possession of grace and second by forcing the self inward and making depravity a “work” which adds to one’s salvation.[13] Third, Chalker contends that Perkins’ view of the covenant of grace and of saving faith is a serious departure from Calvin. The gospel for Perkins is an offer of a possible salvation for some but for Calvin it is the announcement of a certain salvation for all. If the covenant of grace is simply an offer of a possible salvation upon the condition of saving faith then the soul is cast into doubt about how much faith is enough to save. The gaze is shifted from Christ to my faith.[14] Lastly, assurance for Perkins is mired in introspection of saving faith and inspection of sanctified works, although Chalker admits that Perkins did utter that when Satan tempts by crying “thou art not of the elect…. The solution is not to behold faith, but the object of faith which is Christ.”[15] Thus suspicions raised by Miller are deepened by Chalker. A “fall from grace” has occurred in the theology of William Perkins.

2. The Critique of R. T. Kendall

More recently, R. T. Kendall has deepened the shadow surrounding Perkins’ theology of conversion. A slightly different cleavage between Calvin and Perkins emerges from Kendall’s criticism. First, the Calvin of Kendall builds his theology around the doctrine of unlimited atonement. Because Christ died for all men indiscriminately one need never ask if he is elect. All who look upon Christ are certain that Christ has died for them. Beza and Perkins both subverted Calvin by heavy-handed application of the logic of predestination. The rationalized system which they produced caused them to discard the concept of a general atonement. “Limiting the death of Christ to the elect,” complains Kendall, “robbed reformed theology of the simple idea that Christ alone is the mirror of election, hence the ground of assurance.”[16]

Second, Kendall raises two objections to Perkins’ concept of faith. Though he finds it difficult to fault Perkins’ formal definition of faith (faith as persuasion, assurance, or apprehension) he feels that at heart Perkins is a voluntarist, which makes faith something man does. In addition, Perkins’ voluntarist concept of faith leads him to speak of degrees of faith with weaker degrees needing further work before assurance is given.

Third, Kendall is not comfortable with Perkins’ insistence that the practical syllogism must be used if assurance is to be realized.[17] Kendall quotes Calvin on 2 Pet 1:10: “The assurance of which Peter speaks should not, in my opinion, be referred to conscience, as though the faithful acknowledged themselves before God to be elect and called. I take it simply of the fact itself, that calling is shown to be confirmed by a holy conscience.”[18] To ground assurance in such a reflex act is to take one’s gaze off Christ and turn it inward upon the self. This leads Perkins to add other grounds to assurance such as holiness of life which Calvin, according to Kendall, does not allow.

The stigma that Miller placed upon Puritan conversion theory has thus been extended by recent scholarship despite the revisions of Miller’s thesis that have been made. Did Perkins depart from Calvin on conversion? Did the issues of preparation and assurance reveal a wholesale cleavage between Perkins and the Continent? Does Perkins’ theology of conversion thus represent a “fall from grace” as Karl Barth has suggested? We explore these questions now as we survey Perkins’ conversion theory, examining first his concept of the covenant of grace and the ordo salutis it presupposed. Following this we shall walk with Perkins through the four successive steps of humiliation, faith, repentance, and new obedience that compose the drama of conversion, the central drama of the Puritan meeting house.

II. Perkins’ Concept of the Covenant of Grace

1. Background of Perkins’ Covenant Theology

For Perkins’ Practical Divinity, the issue of rebirth is the “root of the matter.” The creation of the godly nation and the fulfillment of its messianic task hinged upon the ability of Protestant preachers to produce twice-born men. Resistance to this concept of radical inward transformation was, in Perkins’ eyes, widespread among the masses. Pelagianism, Romanism and a general apathy had eaten into the communal conscience of Elizabethan society and taken their toll. The extent of the damage is reflected in the slogans that Perkins condemns in the preface to his Foundation of Christian Religion:

1. That faith is a man’s good meaning, and good serving of God. 

2. That God is served by the rehearsing of the Ten Commandments, The Lord’s Prayer and the Creed…. 

5. That no one can tell whether he shall be saved or no certainly…. 

19. That it was a good world when the old religion was, because all things were cheap…. 

26. That a man eats his maker in the sacrament. 

27. That if a man be no adulterer, no thief, no murderer, and do no man harm, he is a right honest man…. 

31. That ye are to be excused in all your doings, because the best men are sinners. 

32. That ye have so strong a faith in Christ, that no evil company can hurt you.[19]

Coupled with these popular misconceptions Perkins’ experience at Cambridge during the Baro controversy cemented his conviction that something had to be done to delineate clearly the Reformed view of conversion. For Perkins, this meant giving an accurate description of the covenant of grace and the divine and human action this covenant enjoined.[20] He defines the covenant as “that whereby God freely promising Christ and his benefits exacts again of man that he would by faith receive Christ and repent of his sins.”[21] Its gracious character is emphasized by Perkins when he also calls the covenant of grace a testament “for it is confirmed by the death of the testator.”[22] While writing against a background of covenant theology developed by the Rhineland theologians such as Olevianus and Bullinger and enriched by the native contributions of Tyndale, Dudley Fenner, and Cartwright, Perkins made a greater use of the concept describing the covenant of grace as “the outward means for executing the decree of election.”[23]

On the divine side, entrance into the covenant of grace was equivalent to mystical union between the believer and Christ which occurs when God offers the gift of grace to us and we receive it by faith. Perkins further defines this union as an act of the Spirit of God “which gives spiritual life to all the members: distance of place does not hinder this conjunction because the Holy Ghost which linketh all the parts together is infinite.”[24] In the back of this union achieved through the agency of the Holy Spirit lies the decree of election. Flowing forth from this union are the four “degrees of divine love,” calling, justification, sanctification, and glorification.

2. The Divine Side of The Covenant

The central question surrounding Perkins’ teaching on the decree of election concerns its impact upon the place of Christ in the covenant of grace. If the formal cause of the covenant is election then does not Christ and his work pale in contrast? Ian Breward, sympathetic interpreter and biographer of Perkins, complains that the “work of Christ was discussed within the context of predestination rather than providing the key to the decrees of God.”[25] He points out that Calvin discussed predestination after the work of Christ and justification and is not at all pleased that Perkins reverses the order. M. M. Knappen joins the chorus of complaint by curiously blaming Perkins for following Calvin too closely:

Calvin cast such a deep shadow over the Puritan world that he determined the tone of its entire thinking. To this fact may be attributed the surprising lack of christological thought in this avowedly Christian movement…. Certainly the person of Christ figures very little in their literature.[26]

Despite the inability of Perkins’ critics to agree whether he imbibed too much or too little of Calvin, the question of withered Christology stands.

It cannot be denied that Perkins has a high view of predestination. Expressly influenced by Zanchius of Heidelberg, Perkins’ supralapsarian views were too severe for even many of his disciples who by the time of the Westminster Assembly opted for the attractions of infralapsarianism although not without debate. But it does not necessarily follow that Christ and his work is any less for being involved in the decree. In fact many non-decretal approaches to theology reduce Christ to little more than an inspired human being and his work to little more than exerting a moral influence upon mankind to be “the man for others.” For Perkins predestination acted to protect the integrity of Christ and his work from any pelagianizing tendencies. Nor did Perkins detach his doctrine of election from his doctrine of Christ who is “the foundation” of election, “called of his father from all eternity, to perform the office of mediator, that in him all those which would be saved, might be chosen.”[27] Not only is Christ the foundation of election for Perkins but he is also the meaning and end of election. “Christ…stands in our place, room and stead and before God represents the person of all the elect; and in this respect is he subject to the law, not by nature, but by voluntary abasement and condition of will.” The work of Christ is not automated by decrees but is voluntarily chosen by the Son. For Perkins, salvation is never focused on a bare decree but upon the decreed Christ: “the eternal Son of God, being made man, by his death upon the cross and by his righteousness hath perfectly alone by himself accomplished all things needful for salvation.”[28] Perkins utterly rejects the idea that the decrees are the focus of the Scriptures, but with Calvin finds the scopus scriptorum squarely in Christ:

The sum of the scripture is contained in…this which followeth. The true Messiah shall be both God and man of the seed of David; he shall be born of a virgin; he shall bring the gospel forth of his father’s bosom; he shall offer himself up a sacrifice for the sins of the faithful; he shall conquer death by dying and rising again; he shall ascend into heaven, and in due time he shall return unto judgement.[29]

To contend that Perkins’ emphasis on predestination wilted the place of Christ in the covenant of grace is neither a deductive necessity nor an inductive reality from an examination of his writings. Why then the emphasis upon predestination? It appears that Perkins’ supralapsarian views were more for practical reasons than for metaphysical ones. Perkins saw in the decrees the approach which gives God the most glory (salvation is all of grace) and the Christian the most comfort, for the Christ offered to him and accepted by him is forever and without fail. As a foundation for assurance predestination “teacheth that the anchor of hope must be fixed in that truth and stability of the immutable good pleasure of God so that albeit our faith be so tossed, as that in danger of shipwreck, nevertheless, it must never sink to the bottom, but even in the midst of danger take hold of repentance as on a board and so recover itself.”[30] The background of Perkins’ covenant of grace was election in Christ as its formal cause and the work of Christ as its material cause.[31]

In contrast to the decretal background of the covenant of grace, little controversy surrounds Perkins’ discussion of the application of the covenant to the life of the elect. This action of the Holy Spirit involves calling, justifying, sanctifying, and glorifying. In The Golden Chain, Perkins breaks down effectual calling into three components. The first involves the effectual hearing of the Word, both law and gospel, to the degree that the mind is illuminated with the truth of it all. The second element involves the mollifying of the heart, dissolving its hard resistance, ploughing it up with the Word, and cultivating the desire for Christ and the remission of sins he offers. The final component of calling is saving faith, “a miraculous and supernatural faculty of the heart, apprehending Christ Jesus being applied by the operation of the Holy Ghost and receiving Him to itself.”[32] Perkins often used effectual calling as a synonym of regeneration and little indication is given that he either distinguished the two or debated the logical priority of one or the other.[33]

Justification and sanctification are the second and third degrees of divine love. Justification is defined by Perkins as that act of God whereby “such as believe are accounted just before God through the obedience of Jesus Christ.”[34] This act is composed of two parts: the remission of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. The former simply promises that “he that believeth is freed from the guilt and punishment of sin by the passion of Christ.”[35] Imputation denotes that “such as believe are…accounted as just in the sight of God through Christ’s righteousness.”[36] Adoption is subsumed under justification in Perkins’ treatment. In opposition to Trent, Perkins is uncompromising “that a man is justified by faith alone because faith is that alone instrument.” Sanctification is that act of God

by which a Christian in his mind, in his will and in his affections is freed from the bondage and tyranny of sin and Satan and is little by little enabled through the Spirit of Christ to desire and approve that which is good and walk in it. And it hath two parts. The first is mortification when the power of sin is continually weakened, consumed and diminished. The second is vivification by which inherent righteousness is really put into them and afterward is continually increased.[37]

While we cannot develop Perkins’ entire doctrine of sanctification here, two points should be noted. One is Perkins’ essentially moral view of the Christian life. God’s sanctifying grace is concerned with moral renovation, not mystical highs or emotional ecstasies. The other point is that Perkins is optimistic about sanctification and sees it as a triumphant struggle without caving in to naive perfectionism. The reason for his optimism is not grounded in man but rather in God’s stubborn grace “for a fire without matter, whereby it is fed and continued, would soon go out; so unless God of his goodness, should follow his children, and by new and daily supplies, continue his first grace in them, they would undoubtedly…fall away.”[38] Glorification will bring to fruition the strivings of sanctification and represents the final degree of God’s love.

Thus the covenant of grace is for Perkins first and foremost the story of divine love in action in the provision of salvation. But just as mighty movements within the earth gradually stir the face of the landscape so God’s grace does not fail to move and alter the man upon whom it operates. It is this fact that leads to the second side of the covenant of grace—the human response. The distinction between the divine and the human side of the covenant of grace is admittedly a misleading one. Grace is the dominant force on both sides graciously moving man to receive what is graciously offered. Yet the distinction is important, for Perkins’ doctrine of salvation is at the same time a doctrine of conversion, of actual change in the depths of man’s being. What are the precise stages in this human transformation? While the Cases of Conscience initially lists ten stages, Perkins boils the steps of conversion down to four: humiliation, faith, repentance, and new obedience.[39]

III. The First Step in Conversion: Humiliation

When the great Charles Hodge was confronted with the objection that his theology of sovereign grace and total depravity paralyzed the individual who desired salvation, his retort was that such a thought was nonsense and that the “helpless human” should be all the more motivated to seek after the giver of the needed grace. In like fashion Perkins, though a decretal Calvinist, suggested that those who would seek after God must first be humbled before him in deep dependence. Because this act of “humiliation” seemed to precede faith, he called it a work of preparation although it is “indeed a fruit of faith: yet I put it in place before faith because in practise it is first. Faith lieth hid in the heart and the first effect whereby it appears is the…humbling of ourselves.”[40] Technically, humiliation involved four facets: hearing of the word, awareness of God’s law, conviction of sin, and despair of salvation. All of these works could be wrought in the lives of the non-elect by a common operation of the Spirit but when in retrospect a true believer analyzed these steps they were in fact works of regeneration and therefore “fruits of faith.”

1. The Preparation Question

As with his critique of the Puritan concept of covenant, Perry Miller has not been kind in his assessment of preparation for salvation. His verdict is that it “was a short step from such thinking to an open reliance upon human exertions and to a belief that conversion is worked entirely by rational argument and moral persuasion.”[41] The continental Reformers were by no means as sure of this fact as Miller seemed to be. Norman Pettit has suggested that there were at least three continental attitudes on the position of preparation. Peter Martyr represented one extreme with the idea that the heart is taken by storm, “that grace comes only as an effectual call, with no preparatory disposition of the heart.” Bullinger represented the opposite extreme “that grace follows the heart’s response to God’s offer of the covenant promises in preparatory repentance.” Coming down in the middle between these two positions is Calvin’s view “that grace, while entirely a matter of seizure, may nevertheless involve preparation through divine constraint of the heart.”[42] The English theologians opted broadly for the Calvin-Bullinger part of the spectrum but vacillated between the two Swiss Reformers. As they looked closer at Calvin they recognized that preparation had a role to play in the economy of conversion.

Calvin insisted that the Holy Spirit usually prepared the elect for the reception of grace and that the reprobate had no right to complain, for “who art thou, O man, that thou wouldst impose laws upon God? If it be his will to prepare us by exhortation for the reception of this grace, by which obedience to the exhortation is produced, what have you to censure in this economy?”[43] Against the scholastics he utterly denied the possibility of congruent merit. For Calvin, the fallen will “cannot produce anything but what is corrupt.”[44] Bullinger shared Calvin’s view of moral inability but more forcefully insisted upon a law work prior to saving faith. “We in this disputation of ours will use repentance for a converting or turning to the Lord…an unfeigned turning to God, whereby we being of sincere fear of God…do acknowledge our sins.” This acknowledgement of sin involves “grief conceived for sins committed…mortification and the beginning to lead a new life, and…the change, correction and amendment of life from evil to better.” Furthermore, “this acknowledgement of a disease doth minister occasion to think upon a remedy.”[45] Bullinger placed some form of repentance before faith (though not ruling out its continuing efforts after faith). While Calvin agreed that the law prepares us for Christ he did not stress this to the degree Bullinger chose to. He did stress that repentance proper occurs only after faith. Both taught some form of temporary or hypocritical faith in which a reprobate appeared to embrace Christ, repent, etc., but that these were actions of the natural man without saving effect. Quite obviously a great deal of ambiguity remained in the minds of English theologians attempting to follow the continental lead on the issue of preparation.

It appears that Leonard Trinterud is correct in his assertion that Bullinger cast a long shadow across the English Channel, longer than did Calvin on the issue of conversion.[46] Lynn Baird Tipson’s more recent research bears this judgment out.[47] John Bradford in his sermon on repentance offers a three stage model of conversion; sorrow for sin, faith, and new life with assurance resting primarily on works, for it is “demonstrated by pursuing of the good things which God’s word teacheth you.”[48] Bradford went so far as to suggest that “such as find no terror of conscience and see not their just damnation in the law of God” could never “find sweetness in the gospel of Christ.”[49] John Hooper added further proof of Bullinger’s influence when he insisted that “the faithful of God cannot profit in the gospel of Christ, neither love nor exercise justice and virtue, except they be taught and made to feel the burden and danger of sin, and be brought to humble themselves, as men that be of themselves nothing but sin.”[50] Little reference is made to whether or not the natural man is performing this preliminary work to any degree. By the time of Richard Greenham something of a consensus existed among Protestant divines that works of preparation if not mandatory were nonetheless normal phenomena of true conversions. Greenham reiterates the three-stage model of conversion: “men must first be made, by feeling of their sins, to seek after Christ, and then by a holy faith to find Christ, and then by newness of life to dwell with Christ.”[51] One had first to “purge the sore by the vinegar of the law, and after to supple it with the oil of the gospel.”[52] Dudley Fenner stands out as a notable exception to his fellow English divines. In his Sacra theologia nothing is said of preparation but a three-stage model of conversion is offered consisting of faith, repentance, and good works. As with other English divines, however, the saving value of a buildup to faith is not discussed. The entire tradition has left unanswered whether the unbeliever with the prepared heart is still outside of saving grace.

What has been said already regarding Perkins’ doctrine of humiliation can now be put into perspective. Instead of staying with a three-stage model like Bullinger’s or Bradford’s which places most of the freight of repentance prior to faith, or with the model of Calvin and Fenner which places the same load following faith, Perkins opts for his four-stage model of humiliation, faith, repentance, and new obedience. By adding a stage he makes clear a distinction alluded to by Bullinger that repentance in some fashion operates on both sides of faith. For Perkins, humiliation does not always lead to a turning from sin. Humiliation can thus stop short of true repentance. The law work of humiliation with its fear, terror, accusations of conscience, and despair are entirely outside saving grace and can be experienced alike by elect and non-elect when both are in their natural state. “Works of composition,” which begins with stage two—the desiring of Christ and his saving benefits—is the first part of faith and the initial evidence of saving faith. Perkins has thus moved the question of preparation back toward Calvin’s understanding of it and not further away. More to the point, he comes down midway between Bullinger and Calvin and therefore safely within Reformed boundaries.

Perkins claims that his doctrine of preparation is neither original nor rigid. He took most of his ideas, he explains, from the “sweet and savory writings of Master Tyndale and Master Bradford.”[53] While humiliation by the law of God may be normal it need not be stereotyped, for “in the scriptures we find examples of men converted unto the Lord without any vehement sorrow for their sins. What anguish of conscience had the thief upon the cross.…If God by his Spirit has wrought you sorrow for sin in you in any small measure as you desire, you have no cause to complain.”[54]

Perkins attempts to deal with a variety of theological and practical questions of conscience relating to preparation by humiliation. Regarding theological issues Perkins addresses the question of whether man’s natural will is engaged in doing anything positive to contribute to his salvation. His answer is clear: “The soul of man is not weak but stark dead in sin, and therefore it can no more prepare itself to repentance, than the body being dead in the same grave can dispose itself to the last resurrection.”[55] In commenting on Paul’s conversion he utterly rejects the Catholic notion that prevenient grace cooperated with “good motions and desires” in Paul. Paul was dead in trespasses and sins, Perkins retorts, and it is only following the grace of regeneration that Paul had any “good motions or desires” at all.[56] In order for Paul to be converted grace did not cooperate with his will but in fact did violence to his will because “an unwilling will to become willing” involves “violence.”[57] Where Perkins is ambiguous theologically is on the question whether the preparation of humiliation in the elect is actually part of regeneration. We have already quoted his comment that humiliation is a “fruit of faith: yet…before faith, because in practise it is first ‘while’ faith lieth in the heart.” Yet in the very same context, writing in the Cases of Conscience, he states that the works of preparation are not necessarily part of regeneration.[58] There is an inherent contradiction here which led Herman Witsius to the following assessment:

There were also some of ours who spoke of preparation for regeneration and conversion, but in quite a different sense from the Pelagianisers. They laid down in those to be regenerated (1) the breaking of natural contumacy and flexibility of will, (2) serious consideration of the law, (3) consideration of their own sins and offences against God, (4) lawful fear of punishments and terror of hell and so despair of their salvation on the score of anything in themselves. This is the order in which Perkins recounts these preparations in his ‘Cases of Conscience.’…We think those more accurate in their philosophising, who lay it down that these things and such as these in elect persons are not preparations for regeneration but the fruits and effects of initial regeneration.[59]

Perkins attempted both to guard against the reprobate who was simulating the experience described in the parable of the sower or Heb 6:4–6 and to give the reprobate no foundation for his presumptive faith. At the same time Perkins is open to the charge that he teaches that the elect prior to regeneration are savingly prepared by their natural efforts, a concept he expressly rejects in his Commentary on Galatians but flirts with in Cases of Conscience. Though Perkins inherited this ambiguity from previous Reformed theology, Witsius’ clarification is both valuable and needed.

2. Practical Cases of Humiliation

On the practical side, Perkins gave direction to those who sought to be humbled for their sin and specifically addressed four cases. The first case involved the question whether one can be properly humbled for his sin if he “cannot call to mind all or most of his sins.”[60] Perkins’ response is that while “particular” repentance is the norm under two conditions a general repentance is acceptable. First, if after deep examination no other sins are revealed to the conscience then, even though many lie hidden in the recesses of the heart, a general sorrow for sin can still be genuine. The second condition is in cases where there is no time for a roll call of particular sins, so that a general confession will suffice (such as in the case of the thief on the cross).[61] Case two described an individual with a hard heart about his sins and deep-seated resistance to humbling. Perkins’ counsel? If you can grieve over your inability to grieve then you have in fact experienced an effective form of humiliation.[62] What if your grief is more due to the earthly loss caused by your sin than by offense to God? The response to case three is remarkably kind. Such a sorrow should not trouble your conscience if, though emotionally you are agitated by the earthly loss, mentally you are holding a more dispassionate perspective and realize that the offense to God is far more serious for “the loss of the favor of God is the loss of the most precious thing in the world.”[63] A final case is concerned with the very practical matter of tears. Does grief have to be visibly expressed? Perkins unhesitatingly avoids the temptation to stereotype the pattern of conversion by rejecting the necessity of an emotional show. What is necessary, however, is “in the heart to deeply be displeased with ourselves.”[64]

Such is William Perkins’ concept of preparation. It hardly seems to justify the assessment of one church historian that such teaching in the Puritans amounted to a doctrine of “congruent merit.”[65] Perkins’ teaching was heavily protected by evangelical safeguards at key points. With the exception of the clarification by Witsius, Perkins’ concept of preparation was a generally successful attempt to add clarity to a teaching already accepted in varying forms by a broad spectrum of the Reformed community on the Continent as well as in England.

IV. The Second Step in Conversion: Faith in Christ

1. Definition and Degrees of Faith

For the elect under the influence of effectual calling the step of humiliation merges almost imperceptibly with the step of faith. To believe in Christ, instructs Perkins in the Cases of Conscience, involves apprehending and applying Christ to oneself.[66] More formally, “faith is a supernatural gift of God in the mind, apprehending the saving promise with all the promises that depend on it….”[67] Another way of putting it is that faith is experienced “when a man upon the commandment of God, sets down this with himself, that Christ is his wisdom, justification, sanctification and redemption.”[68] Having defined faith, Perkins clarifies aspects of his definition. Regarding that part of the human personality where faith is seated, Perkins prefers to place it in the mind rather than the will because it is at heart “a persuasion.” He is aware that some root it in the will because it is a decision to rest all in Christ but Perkins gently resists this option because a “single grace” cannot have a “double seat.” The nature of faith is discussed by Perkins primarily under the term “apprehending,” which he regards as more than perception but involving deep personal reception. Pointing to Gal 3:4, Perkins explains that “to believe is to eat and drink the body and blood of Christ…. Faith…is the hand of the soul, receiving and applying the saving promise.” Faith by nature is personal and particular, not vague and general. Finally, the object of faith is not faith itself but Christ only. Christ is ever the object of a growing faith which after seeing him initially as a sacrifice on the cross for the remission of sins, continues to see Christ as the strength to win the warfare with temptation, as the comfort which alone soothes in the storm of affliction and ultimately grows to see in Christ “all things needful in this life and in the life to come.”[69]

Such saving faith is given to the soul by five degrees. Of these five degrees the first two are still part of the network of humiliation and are in point of time still prior to the actual moment of saving faith. These first two degrees include knowledge of the gospel by the inner illumination of the Spirit, followed by a growing hope of pardon as the Spirit of God begins lifting the individual from the “slough of despond” caused by humiliation, to the higher ground of hope for the pardon of sins. The third degree of faith is actually the point where the individual is hurtled into the kingdom of Christ for it is at this stage that the individual begins “hungering and thirsting after the grace that is offered to him in Christ Jesus.”[70]

One of the most remarkable features of Perkins’ doctrine of saving faith is this teaching on faith as simply the desire for Christ, for “a serious desire to believe and an endeavor to obtain God’s favor, is the seed of faith.”[71] He compares this weak faith to Isaiah’s “smoking wick” and comforts the sincere seeker with the thought that “God doth not despise the least spark of faith if so be it little and little do increase and men use means to increase the same.”[72] In his treatise on A Grain of Mustard Seed, Perkins explores this conception of minimal saving faith as desire and summarizes his thought in six conclusions:

A man that cloth but begin to be first converted is even at that instant the very child of God, though inwardly he be more carnal than spiritual…. 

The first material beginnings of the conversion of a sinner or the smallest measure of renewing grace have the promises of this life and the life to come…. 

A constant and earnest desire to be reconciled to God, to believe, and to repent, if it be in a touched heart, is an acceptation with God, as reconciliation, faith, repentance itself. 

To see and feel in ourselves the want of any grace pertaining to salvation, and to be grieved therefore, is the grace itself. 

He that hath begun to subject himself to Christ and his word, though as yet he be ignorant in most points of religion, yet if he have a care to increase in knowledge, and to practise that which he knoweth, he is accepted of God as a true believer. 

The foresaid beginnings of grace are counterfeit unless they increase.[73]

The final qualification is consistent with Perkins’ conviction that while a weak faith saves it does not remain weak long. This is due to the additional grace streaming into the life of the new convert. As Cotton Mather would say, “if God give the grace of desire, he will give the desired grace,”[74] implying strongly that further degrees of faith beyond desire are inevitable. What will those degrees be? Degree four is “approaching the throne of grace that there flying from the terror of the law, he may take hold of Christ and find favor with God.”[75] This “taking hold” involves both humble confession and craving for pardon, leading to the final degree, “a special persuasion imprinted in the heart by the Holy Ghost, whereby every faithful man doth particularity apply unto himself those promises which are made in the gospel.”[76]

2. Criticism of Perkins’ Doctrine of Faith

It is at this point that we must touch base with three criticisms of Chalker and Kendall, especially relating to three of the degrees of saving faith. Their first complaint is that Perkins has strayed from Calvin’s concept of faith as assurance. Kendall points out that in Calvin even weak faith has a firm persuasion from the start but that in Perkins such faith needs further work to arrive at the “fifth degree” where assurance is registered. In response to this Perkins points out that the weak and trembling faith of degree three contains seeds of “infallible certainty” which fully blooms, however, only as faith is strengthened. Strong faith does not add assurance to weak faith, it only develops what is inherently within faith. Such a response would neutralize the complaint that Perkins is departing from Calvin at that point.[77] A related second criticism is that Perkins has placed the exact moment of saving faith at degree three with the motion of the heart desiring Christ and his benefits. Chalker is especially hostile to this idea, insisting that faith should be identified with what Perkins would call the first degree—knowledge of the gospel. Likewise Kendall underlines Calvin’s use of knowledge (scientia) as a synonym for faith. Perkins’ counter-objection to both Chalker and Kendall would be simply that they have reduced faith to assensus and mere historical faith. Such a reduction is certainly in violation of Calvin’s understanding of faith which insisted upon not only a “firm and certain knowledge” of the promise of Christ but also the seal “upon our hearts” by the Holy Spirit.[78] Perkins attempted to do justice to both emphases in Calvin’s statement by rooting faith in both the mind and the heart by personal application through conscience:

By this one action saving faith differeth from all other kinds of faith. From historical [faith] for it wanteth all apprehensions and standeth only in a general assent. From temporary faith, which though it maketh a man to profess in the gospel and to rejoice in the same yet doeth it not thoroughly apply Christ with his benefits. For it never brings with it any thorough touch of conscience or lively sense of God’s grace in the heart.[79]

Perkins finally asserts that no amount of notitia or assensus will ever add up to the richness of fiducia.[80] Anything less than a desire of the heart is less than saving faith.

Chalker and Kendall pursue their objections and push their criticisms of Perkins’ concept of saving faith as desire to the point of charging that the Puritan theologian has made faith a new work. Kendall feels that Perkins is at heart a “voluntarist” in his concept of faith, for he insists on two acts of faith—the first to apprehend Christ and the second to apply him.[81] The second act which Kendall calls the reflex act, brings man’s will and interior life into the process of faith. Personal application of Christ brings the practical syllogism into play and one begins trusting in his application of Christ instead of in Christ himself. Perkins would respond simply that his critics have a defective understanding of human psychology as well as divine grace. Conscience is so much the core of an individual’s interior life that it must register and process what consciousness has noted. Raw apprehension is immediately marched through the practical syllogism for a personal moral judgment and testimony. Personal knowledge of the gospel for Perkins is by definition knowledge rooted in both consciousness and conscience.[82] Having corrected his critics’ understanding of psychology, Perkins instructs them more fully in correct understanding of grace. His critics insist on opposing grace to the workings of human psychology and emphasize how each is repelled by the other. Perkins’ understanding of God’s grace in the application of redemption by the work of the Holy Spirit emphasizes the idea of conquest and control of man and his faculties which produces new responses in man, moving him to embrace God in Christ. “God’s will,” Perkins insisted, “determines and limits the will of man, and man’s will is an instrument of effecting the will of God.”[83] By his grace God causes “an unwilling will to become willing.” This enables Perkins to be able to say in regard to Paul’s conversion that while Paul’s “good motions and desires” (which includes saving faith) are truly Paul’s they are not his in his natural state but only in the state of regeneration which enables a renewed mind, heart, and will to apply and apprehend Christ.[84] Thus, Perkins can maintain that while faith is something which man truly “does” by engaging mind and conscience in apprehending and applying Christ it is at the same time the gracious work of the Spirit of God. The gospel, concludes Perkins, besides showing us the righteousness of Christ, “is the instrument and as it were the conduit pipe of the Holy Ghost, to fashion and drive faith into the soul: by which faith, they which believe, do, as with a hand, apprehend Christ’s righteousness.”[85]

3. Temporary Faith

Since we have discussed Perkins’ concept of faith from a theological perspective some remarks should now be made regarding the practical problems. What aspects of the step of faith troubled the conscience of the common man in the pew? The single greatest practical issue revolved around the trap of carnal presumption. How does one avoid presumption in applying Christ to himself? Put in another way, how can one be sure his faith is genuine and not temporary faith? While this certainly involves some of the more theoretical issues just discussed, Perkins, nonetheless, attempts to address the question in a direct and practical way. Two major elements are involved in avoiding presumptive or temporary faith. The first is to build faith on a proper foundation. This foundation is, of course, the Word of God. Acquiring a biblical foundation requires a proper grasp of two principles—the command of God to believe and receive the gift of eternal life through Christ and the awareness that the preaching of the Word is the normal means “wherein God doth offer and apply Christ with all his benefits to the hearer.”[86] The second element in avoiding presumption is to properly build on this biblical foundation by giving ourselves “to the exercise of faith and repentance; which stands in meditation of the Word of God and prayer for mercy and pardon; when this is done, then God gives the sense and increase of his grace.”[87] In contrast to this sound faith the blind faith of presumption has three critical flaws. First the knowledge of the gospel in the presumptive reprobate is but “general and confused” whereas the knowledge of the gospel in the elect is “pure, certain, sure, distinct and particular.”[88] Second, false faith gets puffed up by the gospel but true faith is humbled. Thirdly, true believers only “have a free and frank heart to perform in their lives and conversations, which no reprobate can have for their illumination is not joined with true and sincere obedience.”[89] Thus Perkins notes a qualitative difference between presumption and true faith. The objection that he teaches only that temporary faith will not prevail to the end but that saving faith will is not accurate. Yet it must be admitted that his description of the motions of temporary faith is so closely a mimic to the marks of true faith that the simple layman would be in great difficulty to distinguish between the two. Temporary faith can know the facts of the gospel, assent to their truth, rejoice in the gospel, and even display some fruits of faith. Yet lurking behind these motions are natural, not regenerate motives, such as curiosity, human approval, and desire for worldly profit and wealth. Perkins would insist that despite the quality of the counterfeit, the genuine can still be determined by the particular and personal application to the self by the Word-dominated conscience which stands out in marked distinction to the general apprehension and lack of introspection by the presumer.

V. Third and Fourth Steps: Repentance and New Obedience

1. Repentance

Following Calvin, Perkins places repentance after faith. The placement is more for reasons of logic than of time, for “if we respect time, grace and repentance are both together,” just as “so soon as there is fire so soon it is hot: and so soon as man is regenerate so soon he repents.” But theologically he insists that faith is prior even though “some may object that repentance goes before all grace, because it is first preached.”[90]

This placement of repentance after faith and the identification of the moment of new birth with the simple desire to believe guards Perkins from a general charge levelled at Puritan theology that they “load conversion” by requiring believers to be pre-sanctified before they could be considered saved. As Richard Lovelace complains, “Puritan converts were virtually pre-sanctified; like fine watches, they were subjected to so many tests in the assembly process that they could almost be assured against breakdown in future backsliding.”[91] Perkins does not demand sanctification before faith. While it is true that conversion for Perkins is ultimately a change of life and a gradual process, it nonetheless has its crisis point at faith. One does not need to wait for repentance and new obedience to have certainty of salvation, although these fruits will come and will strengthen assurance.

What did repentance entail? Initially sorrow for sin is experienced which prepares the believer for the eventual turn from sin. Inwardly this negative aspect of repentance which follows faith is like the stage of humiliation which preceded faith. This true godly sorrow must flow from the conviction that “we have offended so merciful a God and loving father.”[92] The second half of the full turn of repentance involves a change “of the mind and the whole man in affection, life and conversation.”[93] At its deepest level, true repentance is evidenced in the resolution of the regenerate heart not to sin in anything but to please God and obey him in all things. Not to experience repentance of this variety casts doubt on the efficacy of the humbling and believing steps. Likewise, if repentance is not joined to humiliation and saving faith in Christ, it is equally useless. For Perkins none of the stages of conversion is optional. They are, in fact, all of a piece, parts of the Spirit’s single work of regeneration.

Perkins is aware that the issue of repentance was central to the Protestant Reformation. Objections to the Catholic shriveling of true repentance into the sacrament of penance and the related abuses caused by this reduction triggered Luther’s protest. Consequently Perkins takes pains to clearly distinguish the Reformed understanding of this stage of conversion from its Catholic counterpart.

The first of his six objections is that Catholicism makes repentance a sacrament. Following Luther’s critique in The Babylonian Captivity of The Church, Perkins complains that unlike all biblical sacraments no divinely instituted sign is attached to repentance in Scripture and consequently disqualifies repentance as a sacrament. Secondly, Perkins rails against the Pelagian concept of repentance espoused by Rome which teaches that “a sinner hath in him a natural disposition which being stirred up by God’s preventing grace, he may and can work together with God’s Spirit in his own repentance.” Perkins insists that “all our repentance” is to be ascribed to God’s grace wholly, “for man is not just weak and needing assistance; he is dead and needs to be raised.”[94] A fourth objection focuses on Rome’s teaching that contrition merits forgiveness of sin. Perkins points out that such a teaching makes a man’s own priestly works contribute to his salvation and “derogates much from the all sufficient merits of Christ.”[95] Fifthly, regarding the priestly confession stage of penance, Perkins points out that no Scripture demands this. Finally, Perkins objects to the Catholic teaching of sanctification which holds that “the sinner by his works and sufferings must make satisfaction to God for temporal punishment of sins.” Perkins points out that “the scriptures mention no satisfaction but Christ.” Perkins sarcastically concludes that the only thing “right” about the Catholic understanding of repentance is that it is the “right way to hell.”[96]

2. New Obedience

After the step of repentance the conversion process reaches its climax in the grace of new obedience. The concept of new obedience was at the very heart of his piety of law and Perkins took care to define it. The first aspect of new obedience was that it was a fruit of the Holy Spirit. When the Christian finds his life issuing good works he needs to be reminded that “it is Christ that doth it in us.”[97] Furthermore, new obedience embraces the entirety of God’s law. All, not just part, is to be kept. Finally, new obedience flows from the renewed mind, will, affections, and all parts of the person. Specifics related to this point are: (1) The absence of the outward, public, and abiding sin; (2) spiritual warfare within, resisting, restraining, and defeating corruption; and (3) the exercise of the inward man with motions of faith, joy, love, hope, and praise. Such a description of new obedience underscores the theme that the Christian life for Perkins is not essentially something mystical, emotional, narrowly religious and ecclesiastical, or even intellectual. The heart of the Christian life is intensely moral.

The question comes up at this point whether Perkins’ moral earnestness eroded a thoroughly evangelical understanding of the Christian life. Didn’t such an unrelenting emphasis on good works minimize the emphasis on God’s grace? Perkins attempted to add a number of evangelical safeguards to his teaching on law keeping. First, regeneration must be the source of the work before it could be pleasing to God. “No work,” he warned, “can be accepted of God, unless the worker be approved.”[98] Thus, only those justified by faith in Christ can qualify as approved workers. Secondly, God’s Word alone determines what are good works. But what of indifferent things that are not clearly approved or condemned in Scripture? Any work though indifferent in and of itself ceases to be indifferent in “cases of offense or edification.” Thus, if anything “furthers the commonwealth or church” it is an indifferent thing made good by use. The obvious corollary is that things detrimental to the institutions of society and church are things made evil by use.[99] Thirdly, for a work to be good in God’s eyes it must be done in faith. This faith has two parts—a general faith which can be defined as a belief that one’s work is biblically approved and a justifying faith which declares the doer to be approved by his embrace of the gospel. Fourthly, proper motives are needed if the work is to be acceptable—motives found only in a heart conquered by grace. These motives include God’s glory, gratitude, helping the neighbor, strengthening faith, etc. Finally, the ultimate evangelical safeguard to emphasizing good works is that even the best we do is only good in Christ. Christ must cleanse our good works for they are always stained by corruption.[100] It is at this point that the interface between justification and sanctification is seen and their mutual relationship made visible. As Victor Priebe comments on Perkins’ treatment of the relationship of justification and sanctification:

It is significant therefore, that while Perkins makes a logical distinction between the work of God in justification, and sanctification, they are in reality part of the same gift, Christ Jesus, who is received in the moment of entrance into the covenant of grace. Again, Perkins takes a position identical to that of Calvin at this point, so that William Niesel’s conclusion concerning Calvin can be applied with equal validity to Perkins when he writes: “There is only one sufficient reason for God’s verdict of justification, our union with Christ. He alone is the guarantor of our sanctification…. In Him, and only in Him, justification and sanctification are one.”[101]

With this array of safeguards, the accusation that Perkins’ concept of new obedience is a “fall from grace” is unfounded.

A final question on the step of new obedience, a specific case of conscience Perkins addresses in his writing, relates to the mechanics of new obedience. How does one go about producing good works out of his life? Pointing to Luke 9:23, Acts 24:14, and 1 Tim 1:19, Perkins attempts to summarize some specific rules for new obedience. Luke 9:23 counsels the disciples to deny themselves, take up their cross and follow Christ. Self-denial for Perkins means “to exalt and magnify the grace of God, and become nothing in himself, renouncing his own reason, will and affection and subjecting them to the wisdom and will of God in all things; yea, esteeming all things in the earth, even those that are dearest unto him, as dross and dung in regard to the kingdom of Christ.”[102] Taking up the cross involves cheerfully bearing burdens and afflictions that come into a person’s life in the providence of God. Following Christ, for Perkins, refers to practicing the virtues of meekness, patience, love, and obedience through the mortification of inner corruptions and the vivification of the Holy Spirit.[103] Acts 24:14, which makes reference to Paul’s belief in the authority of the Scriptures, speaks to Perkins of the validity of both testaments in defining good works and delineating the proper way to worship and serve God. Finally, 1 Tim 1:19 exhorts the believer who would live a life of new obedience to “keep faith and a clear conscience.” Perkins explains that “faith is preserved by knowledge of the doctrine of law and gospel,” and recommends that the believer be constantly applying both to himself. Keeping a clear conscience involves, first of all, practicing “a general calling in the particular.” Perkins simply means that we are to do our work as a Christian. Virtue must adorn the actions of the believer in his job, family life, commonwealth activity, etc. Secondly, we must accept God’s providence in all things with patience. Anger at God results in a violation of conscience and a quenching of new obedience. Finally, “if at any time he falleth, either through infirmity, the malice of Satan, or the violence of some temptation, he must humble himself before God, labor to break off his sin and recover himself by repentance.”[104]

VI. Conclusion

With new obedience, the drama of conversion is complete. To the man in the pew in struggle of soul and seeking salvation Perkins points to the covenant of grace and to the steps of humiliation, faith, repentance, and new obedience. To those who attacked the evangelical formula of sola fide as simply “cheap grace” (as Bonhoeffer stigmatized the barren profession that produced no change of life) Puritans like Perkins responded with a fuller theology of conversion and rebirth. In the process they rejected the medieval answer to “cheap grace”—semi-Pelagian theology and works righteousness—and instead built their model of conversion squarely on the foundations of Luther and Calvin. Perkins’ modern critics who cry that he departed from Calvin often betray a failure to understand Calvin and consequently Perkins.

Regarding the kind of proclamation of the gospel which gives proper balance to law, sin, grace through Christ, and human response through conversion, Perkins is an important pioneer. His covenant theology enabled him to follow a consistent line of co-action which gave strong emphasis to God’s sovereign grace in Christ as the ultimate cause of salvation while at the same time emphasizing the necessity of human response. He matched justification by faith with a dynamic concept of conversion which enabled him to avoid the deadly passivity and notional orthodoxy that became the plague of the Luther lands. With Calvin he emphasized the strong linkage between sanctification and justification and developed a piety of law which Stoeffler credits as being one of the original contributions of Puritanism to subsequent Protestantism. Underlying his covenant theology was his powerful view of conscience which gave his reformulation of the Augustinian doctrine of grace an existential bite. The human psyche as created by God needed the sovereignty of grace to deliver it from the condemnation it was helpless to alter while at the same time it needed to apply and respond to his grace. The practical syllogism is not the enemy of Reformation theology. It is the inward mechanism which would make that theology “stick,” that would produce a psychological explosion within the individual creating the kind of transformation deserving of the name metanoia. By his insistence on personal, conscious response to the gospel, Perkins anticipated the “new birth” teaching that lay at the heart of the Puritan awakening of the seventeenth century as well as the Great Awakening of the eighteenth. With Perkins, Reformed theology becomes increasingly evangelical.

Contrary to the claims of Miller and his school, William Perkins’ description of the meeting-house drama of conversion remains faithful to Calvin, the first generation of Reformed theology and the apostolic gospel they all sought to uphold.

Notes

1. Perry Miller, “The Marrow of Puritan Divinity,” Publications of The Colonial Society of Massachusetts 32 (1937).
2. Ibid., 251.
3. Ibid., 255. The literature on Perkins (1558–1602) has been growing steadily since the 1930s when Louis B. Wright complained that twentieth-century historical scholarship had failed to deal with the man. He is regarded as Elizabethan England’s premier theologian and one of the founding fathers of the Puritan movement. As of yet no book-length secondary study of Perkins has been published in English. Helpful treatments and excerpts of primary sources can be found however in F. Ernest Stoeffler, The Rise of Evangelical Pietism (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965) 49–68; Ian Breward, The Work of William Perkins (Appleford: Sutton Courtney Press, 1970); T. R. Merrill, William Perkins (Nieuwkoop: Nijhoff, 1966). For readers of Dutch cf. the pioneer study of J. J. van Baarsel, William Perkins (The Hague: H. P. de Swart, 1912). Helpful articles on Perkins include Breward, “William Perkins and the Origin of Puritan Casuistry,” in Faith and Good Conscience (London: Puritan and Reformed Studies Conference, 1963); Richard Muller, “Covenant and Conscience in English Reformed Theology,” WTJ 42 (1979–80) 308–34 and also “Perkins’ A Golden Chaine: Predestinarian System or Schematized Ordo Salutis,” Sixteenth Century Journal 9 (1978) 69–81; R. T. Kendall, “Living the Christian Life in the Teaching of William Perkins and His Followers,” Living The Christian Life (London: The Westminster Conference, 1974); and Louis B. Wright, “William Perkins: Elizabethan Apostle of Practical Divinity,” Huntington Library Quarterly 3 (1940) 171–96. Among unpublished dissertations cf. V. L. Priebe, “The Covenant Theology of William Perkins” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Drew University, 1946); C. C. Markham, “William Perkins’ Understanding of the Functioning of Conscience” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Vanderbilt University, 1967); and Mark R. Shaw, “The Marrow of Practical Divinity: A Study in the Theology of William Perkins” (unpublished Th. D. dissertation, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1981).
4. Ibid., 255.
5. Cf. George Marsden, “Perry Miller’s Rehabilitation of the Puritans: A Critique,” CH 39 (1970) 90–105.
6. W. H. Chalker, “Calvin and Some Seventeenth Century English Calvinists” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, 1961); and R. T. Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979).
7. Chalker, “Calvin,” 32.
8. Ibid., 41.
9. Ibid., 45.
10. Ibid., 59.
11. Ibid., 66.
12. Ibid., 114.
13. Ibid., 115.
14. Ibid., 131.
15. Ibid., 144.
16. Kendall, Calvin, 210. It should be noted that Kendall asserts that Calvin first of all held a doctrine of limited atonement and secondly that this doctrine was basic to his theology. If it is so fundamental one wonders why Calvin failed to include it in his Institutes. The discussion of the atonement in Book 2 is silent on the issue. Kendall’s distinction that while he died for all he intercedes to the Father only for the elect (thereby making his death effective only for the elect) is not born out by Calvin’s discussion of Christ’s priestly office where it is emphasized that he intercedes for those for whom he died (2.15.6). Further Calvin’s discussion of one of the “general atonement” passages of the NT, 1 John 2:2 (“not for us only but also for the whole world”) seems to put him squarely on the side of those holding limited atonement: “But here the question may be asked as to how the sins of the whole world have been expiated. I pass over the dreams of the fanatics, who make this a reason to extend salvation to all the reprobate and even to Satan himself. Such a monstrous idea is not worth refuting. Those who want to avoid this absurdity have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world but effectively only for the elect…although I allow the truth of this I deny that it fits this passage. For John’s purpose was only to make this blessing common to the whole church. Therefore, under the word ‘all’ he does not include the reprobate but refers to all who would believe and those who were scattered through various regions of the earth” (Calvin, Commentaries, 1 John 2:2). Calvin’s statements on Isaiah 53 and the Gospel of Mark which Kendall quotes are capable of various interpretations and do not speak to the issue with the clarity of his comments on 1 John 2:2. Thus Kendall’s understanding of Calvin proceeds from fundamental faults. For an insightful review of Kendall’s book see W. Stanford Reid’s review in WTJ 43 (1980–81) 155–64.
17. Kendall, Calvin, 61-62.
18. Calvin, Commentaries, 2 Pet 1:10.
19. The Workes of…William Perkins (3 vols.; London: Legatt, 1612–13) vol. 1, no p. number; the English has been modernized in the quotations.
20. For a discussion of the development of covenant theology in England, cf. Muller, “Covenant and Conscience.” He declares that the early Puritans, most notably Perkins, “in their theology of covenant and piety of conscience…attempted to resolve the possible antinomy between their emphasis on the sovereignty of God’s will in salvation and their commitment to high ethical norms” (p. 310). He argues that the seventeenth century saw a “moving away from the delicate theological balance achieved by Perkins, Ames, and later by Downham” in the theology of Baxter and Bunyan, each moving toward the polarities of legalism and antinomianism respectively (p. 334). Cf. also Jens Moeller, “The Beginnings of Puritan Covenant Theology,” JEH 14 (1963) 46–67.
21. Perkins, Workes, 1.70.
22. Ibid.
23. Breward, Work of William Perkins, 91.
24. Workes 1.300. Perkins rejected any concept of union “by touching, mixture, or, as it were soldering of one soul with another, neither by a bare agreement of the souls among themselves” (77–78).
25. Breward, Work of William Perkins, 86.
26. M. M. Knappen, Tudor Puritanism: A Chapter in the History of Idealism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939) 376.
27. Workes 1.24.27
28. Ibid., 1.2.
29. Ibid., 3.647.
30. Ibid., 1.115.
31. In a rather beautiful little treatise entitled The True Manner of Knowing Christ Crucified, Perkins’ focus is upon the necessity of knowing Christ and enjoying the benefits of his merit, virtue and example. Christ’s merit gives reconciliation, remission of sins and justification. Christ’s virtue gives new life within™mortification and vivification as the Spirit applies Christ’s cross and resurrection to our experience. Christ’s example gives direction to our renewed lives both inwardly as we follow him in prayer, patience in cross bearing, and the like, and in our moral duties as we emulate him who allowed faith, love, meekness, and humility to dominate his activities and relationships. (Workes 1.627–29.)
32. Ibid. 1.79.
33. For a modern discussion of the distinction and logical order of regeneration and calling cf. John Murray, Collected Writings (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1977) 2.167ff.
34. Workes 1.81 (as evidence for his position Perkins cites 2 Cor 5:21; Rom 5:19).
35. Ibid., 81 (cf. Col 1:21, 22; 1 Pet 2:24).
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid. 1.541.
38. Merrill, William Perkins, 103.
39. Ibid., 102-3. The ten “actions” are as follows: (1) A general hearing which involves the outward preaching of the word which catches the attention of the person. (2) Awareness of God’s law in which sin is defined. (3) Awareness of personal sin in which sin is admitted. (4) Fear of punishment and despair of salvation. (5) Consideration of the message of the gospel. (6) Saving faith begins, These are but the “sparks of faith by which the believer is justified and sanctification begins.” (7) The warfare of faith in which the believer struggles with doubting and despair and the essential nature of saving faith is seen by its persistent embrace of pardon. (8) Full assurance registered in the conscience. (9) Repentance involving the evangelical sorrow for sin and actual turning from evil. (10) Grace of new obedience begins when the believer obeys the commands of God and begins to “walk in the newness of life.”
40. Ibid., 103.
41. Perry Miller, “The Preparation for Salvation in Seventeenth Century New England,” Journal of the History of Ideas 4 (1943) 261.
42. Norman Pettit, The Heart Prepared: Grace and Conversion in The Puritan Spiritual Life (New Haven: Yale, 1966) 45.
43. Institutes 2.5.5., quoted by Pettit (The Heart Prepared, 42).
44. Perry Miller’s statement that Calvin conceived of conversion “as a forcible seizure, a Holy Rape of the surprised will,” is a clear misreading of the evidence. Cf. “Preparation for Salvation,” 261.
45. Bullinger, Decades (London: Parker Society) 562–67, quoted by Pettit (The Heart Prepared, 37).
46. Leonard Trinterud, “The Origins of Puritanism,” CH 20 (1951) 37–57.
47. Lynn Baird Tipson, “The Development of a Puritan Understanding of Conversion” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1972).
48. Ibid., 142.
49. Ibid., 138.
50. Ibid., 132.
51. Greenham, Works (London, 1612) 803, quoted by Tipson (“Development,” 169–70).
52. Tipson, “Development,” 172.
53. Workes 1.381.
54. Ibid., 383.
55. Ibid., 468.
56. Ibid. 2.178.
57. Ibid., 187.
58. Merrill, William Perkins, 102-3.
59. Quoted by Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978) 524.
60. Merrill, William Perkins, 103.
61. Ibid., 104.
62. Ibid.
63. Ibid.
64. Ibid., 103.
65. Richard Lovelace, The American Pietism of Cotton Mather (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979). Lovelace’s treatment of Mather is extremely fair but his generalizations about Puritan tradition seem colored by Miller’s views.
66. Merrill, William Perkins, 105.
67. Workes 1.124.
68. Merrill, William Perkins, 105.
69. Workes 1.124.
70. Ibid., 79.
71. Ibid., 80 (Perkins quotes the following proof texts in support: Matt 5:6; Rev 21:6; Ps 145:19).
72. Ibid.
73. Ibid., 637-42.
74. Quoted by Lovelace (Cotton Mather, 100).
75. Workes 1.79.
76. Ibid., 80.
77. See his clear discussion of this in the Discourse on Conscience. Cf. Merrill (William Perkins, 51ff) who asserts that “certainty is of the nature of faith.”
78. Institutes 3.2.7.
79. Workes 1.124.
80. While Chalker agrees that mere assent is not saving faith (“Calvin,” 55), he continually contradicts himself with statements such as: “To know God at all is to know him in Christ as a propitious Father to me” (p. 58); “To know God as the predestinating God was to know oneself as one predestinated to be saved by him” (p. 114). Chalker means by these statements that mere mental awareness of these “facts” about God are simultaneously existential experiences of these facts. We must conclude despite his disclaimers that for him mental assent is saving faith.
81. Kendall, Calvin, 61-62.
82. Cf. Perkins’ discussion of the nature of the conscience in Merrill, William Perkins, 7-8. The conscience thus reflects on faith and grounds it—not by adding works but by adding personal certainty to intellectual conviction. (In this regard cf. ibid., 62–63.)
83. Workes 2.179.
84. Ibid., 178.
85. Ibid. 1.70. Perkins is echoing the Second Helvetic Confession at this point on regenerate man participating in faith and conversion.
86. Merrill, William Perkins, 105.
87. Ibid., 106.
88. Workes 1.363 (Perkins cites Phil 1:9; Gal 5:17; and Rom 8:38).
89. Ibid., 363.
90. Ibid., 455.
91. Lovelace, Cotton Mather, 76.
92. Merrill, William Perkins, 106.
93. Ibid., 106.
94. Workes 1.468 (Perkins cites Eph 2:4 in support).
95. Ibid., 469.
96. Ibid., 469.
97. Merrill, William Perkins, 107.
98. Ibid., 109.
99. Ibid.
100. Ibid.
101. Priebe, “Covenant Theology,” 137–38.
102. Ibid.
103. Ibid.
104. Ibid.