Raymond A. Blacketer cha pter William Perkins (1558–1602) 2 Raymond A. Blacketer William Perkins defined theology as “the science of living blessedly forever.”1 The phrase captures the intellectual rigor and heartfelt piety that come together in the writings of this eminent English theologian, preacher, and spiritual director. Often overlooked or underestimated by modern scholars, Perkins was a very significant and influential scholastic theologian and a pioneer in the field of Protestant practical theology. His writings, particularly in the area of practical piety, exerted substantial influence far beyond the borders of England. Perkins, of course, was not a “Pietist” in the sense that one would use the term to describe later seventeenth and eigh- teenth century Pietism; but the emphasis on practical piety that permeates all his works, regardless of genre, is the one of the most striking aspects of his thought. Heinrich Heppe goes so far as to claim that if anyone could be designated the father of pietism, it would be William Perkins.2 Perkins’ Life and Ministry in the Context of the Elizabethan Settlement The surviving details of Perkins’ life are few. He was born in 1558 in the village of Marston Jabbett in Warwickshire, England. He came to Christ’s College, Cambridge, as a pensioner in 1577. His tutor there was the eminent Puritan preacher Laurence Chaderton. Perkins obtained the BA in 1581, and the MA in 1584; that same year he was elected fellow of Christ’s College and was ordained. Rather than becoming a parish priest, Perkins held a lectureship at Great St. Andrews, which allowed him to preach without the inconvenience of episcopal supervision or strict adherence to the Book of Common Prayer. His early death in 1602 cut short what was already a prolific and influential career as a theologian, preacher, and pastor of souls.3 Perkins was reputed to be wild and reckless in his early years as a student. There is the story, likely fictional, that Perkins’ public inebriation had become so legendary 38 William Perkins that a woman once threatened to hand her naughty child over to “drunken Perkins,” and that in this manner Perkins was shamed into a dramatic conversion.4 By his own account Perkins had delved into the astrological arts in his youth.5 Some of his earliest works are directed against astrology, his former love. But by the early 1580s Perkins had experienced a spiritual change of direction. He focused his studies on theology and began preaching to the inmates in Cambridge’s prison, where he established a reputation as an effective and powerful preacher. Dedicating his life to the Christian ministry, however, did not mean that Perkins would stay out of trouble. Christ’s College was known for its Puritan sympathies and for running afoul of University regulations. Perkins himself was brought before the Vice-Chancellor in 1587 after preaching a chapel sermon in which he criticized some of the prescribed liturgical practices. The record of the event comprises one of the few existing windows into Perkins’ personality and character. He was accused of claiming that it was a “corruption” that the presiding minister should take the elements of the sacrament himself, rather than receiving them from another minister; that the practice of kneeling to receive the sacramental elements was both “superstitious” and “antichristian;” and that facing east at various points in the liturgy was another corruption. Perkins’ answer to these charges was somewhat evasive. He denied he had charac- terized the practice of the minister serving himself the elements of communion as either unlawful or a corruption. Instead, he suggested that it would be preferable, given that there were thirteen ministers present, to receive the eucharistic elements from another pastor, along with that fellow minister’s approbation. In other words, Perkins’ suggestion would be more conducive to mutual discipline and censure. He also denied that he had called kneeling either idolatrous or antichristian. Again, he claimed that he had simply said that of the two practices, sitting was preferable, given the fact that Jesus sat, while the Pope kneels. In his defense, Perkins cited the maxim that “in things indifferent, we must go as far as we can from Idolatry;” and added references to Calvin and Bucer to bolster his case. Finally, with regard to facing east, while Perkins considers the issue indifferent, he finds it rather strange that “while the cross standeth still in the window” the congregation nevertheless turns toward the eastern end of the chapel after the first and second lessons. He concluded his defense by admitting that while he did not seek to stir up conflict in the congregation, he could have addressed his concerns at a more “convenient” time and place.6 Both this episode and the cautious tone of Perkins’ writings in matters of church polity and ceremonies reflect the balancing act he was required to perform as a reform-minded divine in the Elizabethan Church of England.7 Queen Elizabeth I had restored Protestantism in 1559; and many reform-minded clergy hoped that she would implement a thoroughgoing plan to revitalize the doctrine and practice of the Church of England. Instead, Elizabeth firmly resisted any such efforts at reform, choosing rather to chart out a via media for the English Church that asserted absolute royal authority in ecclesiastical matters and left the Church of England looking much too Roman Catholic for many convinced reformers. This develop- ment was particularly disheartening to churchmen whose theological orientation was 39 Raymond A. Blacketer sympathetic to the Reformed or Calvinist branch of the continental Reformation. These frustrations would lead many to advocate the replacement of Episcopal church government with a Presbyterian system, or even separation from the Church of England. Perkins, while firmly committed to the reform of the church’s doctrine and life, endorsed neither of these options, and even condemned them. His brand of “Puri- tanism” must be classified as moderate and non-separatist. He was by no means satisfied with the state of doctrine, worship, and piety in the Church of England; but neither did he conclude that the English church was apostate or beyond reforming. He has harsh words for “sectaries,” and particularly for that “schismatical and indiscreet company” who cry out for discipline, but who themselves exercise no self-discipline when it comes to patiently and peacefully working for reform from within the church. Those who separate from the church and refuse to attend author- ized worship services Perkins condemns as prideful and contemptuous of God’s benefits.8 As for the term Puritan, Perkins uses it to describe the medieval heresy of the Cathars along with any others who might advocate moral perfectionism.9 Thus he finds it offensive when those who seek purity of heart and a good conscience are “branded with the vile terms of Puritans and Precisians.”10 Perkins explicitly condemns the attack on the set prayers of the Book of Common Prayer by the separatists Henry Barrow and John Greenwood. Perkins argues that set forms of prayer are “both profitable and necessary,” since they provide for uniformity in worship and prevent ignorant pastors from neglecting the duty of pastoral prayer. The early church, while still in its more pristine state, had set forms for prayer. With perhaps questionable consistency, Perkins asserts that while sermons read out of a book suppress the gift of prophecy, written prayers are an aid to weak spiritual gifts. Perkins rejects criticism of the Church of England’s use of set prayers in particular its prescribed liturgy in general.11 He reveals a rather optimistic view of the magistrate’s role in governing church affairs. He affirms that the magistrate has the right to reform or depose pastors who fail in their duties.12 Those who seek reform ought to be patient, and wait for the civil authorities to take action in their time. If there are “Popish images” remaining in churches, pious persons should not go to the extreme of removing these images themselves, but must request that the magistrate have them removed, and then abide by whatever decision he should make.13 For Perkins, the best way to effect change in the church was to focus on reforming the spiritual lives of its members, not by attacking the ecclesiastical establishment and its leaders. Perkins: Theologian of Scholastic Piety The significance of William Perkins as a theologian consists in the marriage of practical piety and academic rigor in his theological works. While Perkins was no slavish imitator of continental Reformed theologians such as Theodore Beza and Jerome Zanchi, he certainly considered them theological allies. Along with them, Perkins emphasizes the sovereignty of God in effecting salvation through his decree 40 William Perkins of predestination. Where Perkins distinguishes himself from his allies on the con- tinent is not so much in the content of his theology, but rather in the pronounced emphasis that he places on the practical application of Reformed theology to the inner spiritual life of the believer and to the Christian’s moral life. Perkins produced sophisticated doctrinal treatises that were saturated with practical applications to piety and morals, along with manuals of practical piety that reflect rigorous theological analysis. Another area in which Perkins distinguishes himself, for example, from Beza is his use of the simplified method of logical analysis developed by Peter Ramus.14 Ramism was particularly suited to the practical and pedagogical aims of English Reformed piety. Ramist method, which focused on careful analysis, often employing the bifurca- tions for which it is known, was also self-consciously practical and goal-oriented, and not only in the discipline of theology.