The following are the best books I have read in 2023. Some may have been published, or in some cases republished in 2023, most however are older titles.
Christianity and Liberalism Machen’s interaction with the liberalism of his day serves as a mirror to the current contemporary problems found in so-called progressive Christianity.
The Blazing World by Jonathan Healey: As someone whose church history interests are focused on the Puritans, Healey’s work is a helpful history on the political and social upheavals that shaped early Modern England. It’s both engaging and informative.
Justification by Thomas Schreiner: A concise but thorough treatment of the issue of justification that addresses it from both the view of biblical theology and systematic theology.
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary 1859-2009 by Gregory Wills: The definitive history of SBTS. Moreover, in many ways this book serves as a history of the theological developments that have shaped Southern Baptists. I am in eager anticipation for Dr. Will’s forthcoming history of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Perkins did not shy away from addressing issues touching on economics. The virtue of temperance in Perkins’s understanding touched on four issues; use of riches, use of food and beverage, use of clothing, and use of pleasure.[1] In addressing possessions Perkins provides two categories for consideration, necessary goods and those that are an abundance. Perkins in doing so is clear not to establish a rigid standard of what is necessary. Perkins states, “We must not make one measure of sufficiency of good necessary for all persons, for it varies according to the divers conditions of persons according to time and place.”[2] At the heart of Perkins’s teaching regarding possessions was the idea of contentment. Perkins in advising on having a good conscience concerning wealth states, “We must use special moderation of mind in possessing and using of riches, and be content without our estate, so as we set not the affection of our hearts upon riches.”[3] Perkins understood that the pursuit of wealth was not an end in itself and that one had a responsibility to use their abundance to meet the needs of the poor, the church, and the commonwealth.[4]
Perkins’s treatment of the issue of recreation contradicts a long-held stereotype regarding the Puritan tradition. That stereotype is seen in the following definition, “Puritanism is the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”[5] Concerning rest and recreation Perkins states, “First, rest from labor, with the refreshing of body and mind, is necessary because man’s nature is like a bow, which being always bent and used, is soon broken in pieces.”[6] Perkins adds to this that Christians have the liberty to use God’s creations “for meet and convenient delight.”[7] Perkins, rather than discouraging fun and recreation, encourages the proper use of them. It is in addressing the proper use of recreation that Perkins does condemn animal cruelty as a form of recreation. Perkins states:
Again, the baiting of the bear, and cock fights, are not meet recreations. The baiting of the bull has its use, and therefore it is commanded by the civil authorities. The [others] have not this. And the antipathy and cruelty which one beast shows to another, is the fruit of our rebellion against God, and should move use to mourn rather than to rejoice.[8]
Perkins in addressing recreation is clear that what he seeks to condemn is immoral forms of recreation and entertainment, not recreation and entertainment in general. In conjunction with his condemnation of animal cruelty as entertainment Perkins provides further instruction as to what types of games are legitimate forms of entertainment. Perkins divides games into three categories; games of skill, games of risk, and games that are a mixture of skill and risk.[9] Perkins commends the use of games of skill stating that games, “wherein the industry of the mind and body has the chiefest stroke, are very commendable, and not the be disliked.”[10] Regarding games of risk Perkins thoroughly condemns them.[11] Perkins gives an equivocating answer concerning games that mix skill and risk stating, “as they are not to be commended, so they are not to be simply condemned, and if they are used, they must be used very sparingly.”[12]
Clemency and moderating anger. Perkins describes the virtue of clemency as one that, “serves to moderate wrath and revenge.”[1] Clemency first addresses how a person is, “to carry himself in respect of injuries and offences done unto him.”[2] Perkins in giving counsel on this issue recognizes three categories of offenses: light offenses that only cause displeasure, an offense that causes small injuries, and finally offenses that cause great injury.[3] Concerning offenses that only cause displeasure Perkins states, “when small offences are done, which cannot be avoided, then in discretion a man should withhold his anger, and not take notice of them, but pass by them and let them go.”[4] For offenses that cause small injury, Perkins states that the correct course of action is “to take notice of these, but withal to forgive them and put them up.”[5] The last category of injury requires the greatest act of clemency. Perkins states concerning offenses that cause great injuries three aspects are called for, “(1) in taking notice; (2) in forgiving them; [and] (3) in a just and lawful defending [of] ourselves against the wronging parties.”[6]
Perkins gives the greatest attention to the issue of defending oneself in his treatment of the virtue of clemency. Perkins first addresses that it is appropriate for believers to avail themselves of legal protection from injury. Perkins states, “A man may, with good conscience, defend himself against great injuries by the benefit of the law.”[7] Perkins answers several objections to the understanding that believers have the right to avail themselves of the law to defend against injury. Perkins responds to the challenge that such conduct is contrary to Christ’s teachings found in the Sermon on the Mount. Perkins states that Christ’s teaching, “speaks of private persons who want the defense and assistance of the public magistrate. And such must suffer wrong upon wrong, blow upon blow, and loss upon loss, rather than right their own wrongs by revenging themselves.”[8]
Perkins, in answering the objection that turning to the law violates Paul’s commands regarding lawsuits in 1 Corinthians, notes that Paul is condemning the way the Corinthians brought small manners to unbelieving judges and tarnished the gospel.[9] To the objection that it is the will of God that a person is wronged Perkins answers with the following syllogism, “It is God’s will we should have diseases, and yet it is no less His will that we should use good means to be cured of them. So, it is in wrongs and injuries done to us.”[10] With objections addressed Perkins proceeds to address how an individual might defend themselves using the law. Perkins encourages that clemency is to be applied before seeking to use the law for defense. Perkins states, “we must try all means, and use all remedies that may be, before we use the remedy of law.”[11] Three factors should contribute to moderation before using the law according to Perkins: every injury occurs according to the providence of God, that the courts are ordained by God and in going to them we yield our rights to God, that our primary pursuit in seeking justice must be God’s glory.[12] Bearing all three in mind if the believer does use legal means Perkins states:
After the suit is ended, the moderation of our minds must be expressed by our behavior in regard of the event of our action. For in the law goes with us, we are to give God thanks for the manifestation of His justice in the course take. If, on the other side, it goes against us, we may not rage or be discontentedly grieved, but commend our cause quietly to God, and accuse ourselves for our own sins, and say with David, “Righteous thou art, O Lord, and just are thy judgments (Ps. 119:37).[13]
Clemency and trust of God are to mark the believer both before and after availing themselves of the law.
Perkins after addressing the use of the law to address injury and wrongs proceeds to address the place of self-dense and the use of force in the life of a believer. Perkins does not believe that there is a blanket right to self-defense stating, “In some cases he may lawfully defend himself by force.”[14] With this understanding that there is a limit to legitimate self-defense Perkins proceeds to describe the limits. Perkins gives three criteria that must be met for self-defense to be legitimate: sudden, inescapable, and unavoidable violence, violence that is so clear that the only means of escape are through retaliation or killing, and violence that occurs when the lawful authority is not present or can not be safely availed of.[15] Perkins further elaborates that the justness of self-defense hinges upon three things: that it is involuntary, that the purpose must be to defend and not seek revenge, and that the weapons used be proportionate.[16] Following this Perkins turns his attention to condemn the practice of trial by combat. Perkins thoroughly condemns this practice despite its antiquity stating, “this way of defense, however ancient it may be, is utterly unlawful”[17] In doing so Perkins was not looking to condemn ancient practices that had ceased to exist but those which were an ongoing reality. One author speaks to this reality, “The civil law justified a trial by combat in certain cases; much more so did the English law. It was confirmed by long custom and act of Parliament.”[18] Perkins argues that such a practice, though legal and accepted, violated the biblical command not to kill.[19]
Virtue and Public Life. Patterson notes the foundational role of virtue in Perkins’s understanding of society stating, “Perkins states that all cases in this category are related to the practice of what he calls virtue.” For Perkins virtue is a distinctly Christian attribute as he defines it as, “a gift of the Spirit of God, and a part of regeneration, whereby a man is made apt to live well.” The cultivation of virtue was central to how Christians were to live well in their public lives. Calling it a gift of God, Perkins says that virtue “makes a man fit to live well.” In his cases of conscience, Perkins explores how exactly virtue makes a person “live well.” Patterson notes that while Perkins used the same names as found in classical antiquity, he had a different understanding of the nature and purpose of the virtues. Patterson states: Among the pagans, he argues, practicing these virtues served a restraining purpose—namely, that of bridling ‘the corruption of means hearts’. Among Christians, by God’s grace, practicing the virtues serves a broader purpose: not only to restrain evil affection but also, more important, to renew the heart and soul. This aspect of renewal meant that for Perkins the virtues played an important role in guiding the public life of believers. In setting Christian virtue apart from that of pagans, Perkins is firmly rooted in the Augustinian tradition as Jennifer Herdt notes of the early Modern understandings of virtue, “Early modern suspicion of humanly acquired virtue is associated particularly with the Augustinian tradition. It is thus rooted in Augustine’s famous ambivalence about pagan virtue, well captured by the tag so often attributed to Augustine: the pagan virtues are vices, if glittering ones.” In his ascribing Christian virtue to God’s work Perkins is demonstrating the long-held skepticism of human virtue found in the Augustinian tradition. Prudence and the fear of God. In Perkins’s understanding of the virtues, prudence is synonymous with wisdom. This virtue was the foundation for the decision-making process required of believers. Regarding the practice of prudence Perkins states,” two actions are required…one is deliberation, whereby…we advise what is good and bad…The other is determination, whereby we resolve upon former deliberation to embrace, do follow, and pursue the best things in every kind.” This virtue serves to inform the believers’ understanding of vocation. Perkins teaches, “We must distinguish between the necessary works of our callings that pertain to us, and other works that are out of our callings, and pertain not unto us. And we must do the other, though we leave these undone.” Perkins teaches that there were things that belong to the particular callings of the believers and that prudence was required to discern them and then determination to do them. Perkins also taught that through life believers face decisions between good and bad and that only through prudence would believers be able to make such informed decisions. Prudence also enabled believers to understand that when given the choice, “of two evils, which are both sins, we must not only choose the less, but we are to choose neither.” Prudence was at the forefront of Perkins’s response to the Machiavellian policy which had come to shape the political landscape of Perkins’s time. Perkins puts forward what is a distinct form of policy, informed by prudence, that stands in stark contrast to Machiavellian policy. Perkins provides four caveats for the use of policy: truth should not be prejudiced, nothing should be against the glory of God, nothing should arise out of injustice, nothing should be done outside one’s calling. Perkins further elaborates that if “any of these four caveats are not observed, then it loses both the name and nature of true policy, and becomes fraud craft, and deceit, and so is condemnable.” Perkins makes certain that Machiavellianism stood outside of what prudence allowed. Perkins in condemning Machiavellian policy states, “that which is commonly called the policy of Machiavel is here to be condemned. For it is not answerable to the caveats before remembered.” As Patterson notes, for Perkins prudence was the key for understanding how Christians were to live well, “in a society such as that of England, where can be seen a ruthless politics, a rapidly changing economy, and confusing mew moral standards of behavior.”
William Patterson notes that Perkins faced the challenges of the day with an understanding of the important role the church played in addressing them. Patterson states, “In Perkins’s treatment of the solution to current problems, the parish had a central part to play.”[1] Thomas Wood states that the overall goal of Perkins and his fellow casuists was “to educate the individual conscience in the way of holiness, and to educate the social conscience in the way of justice.”[2] Perkins was not an outlier in his desire to provide moral direction. Wood notes that there was a broad range of individuals who “were determined to perform for English Christians in their own day this service of pastoral guidance and moral interpretation to which, as they believed, the Church must be committed at all times and at all places.”[3]
The vast areas needing to be addressed in society indicate that a broad field of knowledge was needed to address them. These were addressed by Perkins through the field of casuistry. For those like Perkins, casuistry was a very broad discipline. As Ian Breward notes, “It included many subjects…which nowadays would be allotted to systematic and practical theology, psychology, and apologetics, as well as dealing with issues which we would consider belonged to the province of ethics or moral theology.”[4] The development of casuistry had the clear goal of how to obtain and maintain a good conscience. How Perkins sought to address the issues of his day was directly tied to his understanding and practice of preaching. Ian Breward notes that in practicing casuistry Perkins had the laymen in mind, “Perkins’ practical experience and theological ability enabled him to produce a manual for the guidance of fellow ministers and intelligent laymen that analysed the nature of sin, set out the methods to be used in the cure and care of conscience, provided sample cases and examined pitfalls, as well as setting out the essential nature of Christian ethics.”[5] This manual and his overall scheme of addressing matters of conscience and ethics was a byproduct of his application in preaching. Keenan notes Perkins, “His casuistry was a development of his work in preaching, combining the Scriptural with the practical for the singular purpose of understanding the will of God at the moment. His cases were singularly dependent upon the Scriptures and aimed the emotional dispositions of the reader, just as the sermon appealed to the affections of the listener.”[6] By aiming at changing the affections of his listeners and readers, Perkins was developing an understanding of virtue that was informed by both the commands of Scripture and the life that God’s people were called to.
[2] Thomas Wood, English Casuistical Divinity during the Seventeenth Century (London: S.P.C.K., 1952), x.
[3] Wood, English Casuistical Divinity during the Seventeenth Century, xi.
[4] Ian Breward, “The Casuistry of William Perkins,” in vol 2 of Puritan Papers ed. J. 1. Packer (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2001), 221.
[5] Ian Breward, “Significance of William Perkins.” The Journal of Religious History 4, no. 2 (December 1966): 113–28.
[6] Keenan, “William Perkins (1558-1602) and the Birth of British Casuistry,” 122.
C.S. Lewis described the death of virtue in his day with the following stark description, “In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”[1] Alisdair MacIntyre’s seminal work After Virtue argues that the death of virtue in the Western world has led to a turning point and a new dark age:
If my account of our moral condition is correct, we ought also to conclude that for some time now we too have reached that turning point. What matters at this stage is the construction of local forms of community within which civility and the intellectual and moral life can be sustained through the new dark ages which are already upon us. And if the tradition of the virtues was able to survive the horrors of the last dark ages, we are not entirely without grounds for hope. This time however the barbarians are not waiting beyond the frontiers; they have already been governing us for quite some time. And it is our lack of consciousness of this that constitutes part of our predicament. We are waiting not for a Godot, but for another—doubtless very different—St. Benedict.[2]
At this juncture what is needed most of all is a model of how a “community within which civility and the intellectual and moral life can be sustained through the new dark ages.” Where will we look for a model for creating a virtuous community? This will begin a series of posts which will seek to demonstrate that William Perkins provides such a model for the church today. This post will first address Perkins’s historical context. Following posts will then address the role casuistry played in his emphasis on Christian virtue, and finally, will address Perkins’s teaching in regard to Christian virtues with attention to their application in society.
William Perkins provides a model for a church shaped and informed by the nature of Christian virtues in a dark society. One biography provides a stark picture of Perkins’s context, “According to one estimate, twenty-five percent of families lived in poverty. Vagrancy was a problem across the land. Drought and famine were common occurrences. All of this was compounded by the absence of modern amenities including medical care. In sum, Perkins ministered in a day in which affliction was the daily experience of many.”[3]
Furthermore, Perkins’s context was marked by political brutality. George Mosse notes that Perkins sought to chart a course for Christian in this context. Mosse states, “It was Perkins who set himself this task, and in fulfilling it he became a pioneer in ‘practical divinity’. More than this, he had to analyze the relationship of a clear conscience to the new political thought.”[4] The “new political thought” that Perkins had to understand was that of Machiavellianism. As Mosse notes this Machiavellianism was seen in placing “both the maintenance of old laws and customs and the maintenance of the state upon a utilitarian basis, not because they were in themselves good, but because they were a matter of successful politics.”[5] This understanding contributed to what has already been described as the “ruthless politics” of this period. Another concept linked to Machiavellianism in this period was that of policy. Policy “underscores Machiavellianism, since policy is an Elizabethan signifier for Machiavellianism, and as such connotes ‘statecraft’ and ‘shiftiness or cunning’.”[6] That Perkins was aware of and interacting with the ideas behind Machiavellianism Mosse makes clear, “That Perkins was aware of the existence of such ideas there can be no doubt. He condemns in no uncertain terms what is ‘. . . commonly called the policy of Machiavelli.”[7] Perkins sought to prepare Christ’s church for a world of “men without chests”, a virtueless society, through incolcuating a Christ-centered understanding of virtue.
[1] C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man: Reflections on Education with Special Reference to the Teaching of English in the Upper Forms of Schools, Riddell Memorial Lectures, 15th Series (London: Oxford University Press, 1944; repr., New York: HarperCollins, 2001), 26.
[2] Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, (New York: Bloomsbury, 2013), 305.
[3] Joel R. Beeke and J. Stephen Yuille, William Perkins, Bitesize Biographies (Welwyn Garden City, England: EP Books, 2015), 91.
[4] George L. Mosse, The Holy Pretence: A Study in Christianity and Reason of State from William Perkins to John Winthrop (Oxford: Blackwell, 1957), 49-50.
[6] Cony Lodder, “When Pretence Rules over Essence: Shakespeare’s Bastard in King John” in Machiavellian Encounters in Tudor and Stuart England: Literary and Political Influences from the Reformation to the Restoration ed. Alessandro Arienzo and Alessandra Petrina (London and New York: Routledge, 2013), 95.
The final lesson we can learn from Perkins regarding counseling the distressed is the need for patience. Perkins advises, “he who is the comforter must not be discouraged, though after long and painstaking, there follow small comfort and ease to the distressed party.”[1] In the context of pastoral counseling there is a temptation to give up on counselee’s who seem to be making no or slow progress. Perkins encourages patience because, “usually it is long before comfort can be received.”[2] One of the reasons behind this is that ultimately pastoral counseling is not the result of simply following a series of steps, it ultimately rests on the work of God. Perkins states that it is God that “opens the heart to receive comfort.”[3] Patience is needed because pastoral counsel is dependent upon God to open hearts to receive the comfort of the gospel.
One final area that Perkins can be of aid is his balanced understanding of the causes of distress. He understood that there was a complexity regarding the causes of distress. He addresses five causes of distress which he identifies as follows; divine testing, outward afflictions, the temptation of blasphemy, a man’s own sins, and a man’s own body.[4] Perkins understood that these were not necessarily isolated causes of distress. As Perkins notes, “if we make examination of the estate of persons as are troubled with any of these five temptations we shall not usually find them single, but mixed together, especially melancholy with terror of conscience or some other temptations.”[5] Perkins reminds pastoral counselors that sometimes a variety of approaches are required in addressing distress in a person. Perkins in advising what is to be done in a mixed case states, “that for mixed distresses, we must have recourse to mixed remedies, using in the first place the best means for rectifying the mind…and then taking the seasonable advice of the physician, whose calling and service God has sanctified for the cure and relief of the body in case of extremity.”[6] This encourages a holistic understanding of pastoral counseling. There are many times in counseling that health concerns must be addressed for pastoral counseling to have its full effect. The church member who is battling chronic pain as a result of arthritis or some other ailment should be encouraged to seek medical help as that pain may well be a contributing factor to any distress they might be experiencing. In short pastoral counselors should expect and embrace the reality of complexity in addressing distress.
Perkins provides additional practical wisdom in counseling those who are in a deep state of grief that serves as a helpful corrective in our individualistic age. Perkins states regarding those who are in extreme distress, “if the distressed party is much possessed with grief of himself, he must not be left alone, but always attended with good company. For it is a usual practice of the devil to take advantage of the place and time, when a man is solitary and deprived of that help which he might have in society with others.”[1] In our contemporary context which has seen a rise in suicide as well as increasing social isolation, Perkins’s reminder of the need for good company for those in extreme distress is very much needed. As Perkins reminds the reader the devil, “is always most ready when a man is in great distress and withal solitary, then upon the sudden to tempt him to despair, and to the making away of himself.”[2] There’s great danger in leaving those who are in distress to themselves and depriving them of help. The purpose of being present with those in great distress should be that they be, “taught not to rest upon his own judgment…as to be content to be advised by other who are men of wisdom, judgement, and discretion…the very neglect thereof has caused sundry persons to remain uncomforted for many years.”[3] Pastoral counselors must seek to bring gentle correction to the imperfect judgments of the distressed as these judgments are often a contributing factor to their distress.
Further Perkins demonstrates how pastoral counselors are to accommodate and express sympathy to those they counsel. In Perkins understanding the pastoral counselor cannot be a disinterested observer. Perkins states, “the party that is to comfort must bear with all the wants of the distressed; as with their forwardness, peevishness, rashness, and with their distempered and disordered afflictions and actions. Yea, he must put upon him (as it were) their persons, being affected with their misery, and touched with compassion for their sorrows, as if they were his own.”[4] In pastoral counseling it is all too easy to buy into contemporary notions of professional detachment, Perkins reminds pastoral counselors that is not an option. Gospel-centered counselors must be willing to enter into the suffering of the distressed and as Perkins says, “grieving when he sees them to grieve, weeping when they do weep and lament.”[5]
One of the greatest lessons we can learn from Perkins is in the area of comforting the distressed. Perkins defines this distress as, “when a man is disquieted and distempered in conscience, and consequently in his affections, touching his estate before God.”[1] How do we minister grace and encouragement to one who is in doubt and despair? Perkins provides a diagnostic to trace the root causes of distress. After stating that the cause of distress itself is temptation, Perkins further delineates that temptation come in two types, “trial and seducement.”[2]Perkins further elaborates that temptation of trial either comes by way of internal spiritual conflict or by “outward affliction.”[3] In regard to seducement, Perkins defines it as when “men are enticed to fall from God and Christ to any kind of evil.”[4]
After providing an overview of distress, Perkins provides “the best and most sure general remedy…the applying of the promise of everlasting of life in and by the blood of Christ.”[5] Perkins rightly understood the centrality of the gospel in bringing hope to the distressed. Perkins addresses how to bring the comforts of the gospel to bear in the life of the distressed and the importance of the minister applying the comforts of the gospel to the afflicted. Perkins states, “it is most convenient [that] this application is made by the minister of the gospel, who in it must use his ministerial authority given him of God, to pronounce the pardon. For in distress, it is as hard a thing to make the conscience yield to the promise as to make fire and water agree. For though men have signs of grace and mercy in them, yet will they not acknowledge it by reason of the extremity of their distress.”[6] In pastoring we might encounter someone who in their distress thinks that God cannot forgive them, that either owing to their internal struggles or external circumstances there is no hope. Perkins’s instruction in this area encourages us to be heavy on grace in regard to the forgiveness and pardon that the gospel brings, even when we don’t feel pardoned or forgiven. Perkins provides additional practical insight, “the distressed party must never hear tell of any fearful accidents, or of any who have been in the like or worse case than he is. For upon the very report, the distressed conscience will fasten the accident upon itself, and thereby commonly will be drawn to deeper grief or despair.”[7] Perkins demonstrates an awareness of the inner workings of a distressed mind and how it operates. In pastoral counseling, we need to be careful not to bring greater distress and fear to those who are already distressed.
[1] William Perkins, The Works of William Perkins, ed. J. Stephen Yuille, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2019),161.
Why should we read the works of men like William Perkins? Because they offer a valuable contribution to our present ministry. Tim Keller argues for the importance of the Puritans like Perkins in the area of counseling. Keller says, “the Puritans are an excellent ‘laboratory’ for studying biblical counseling, because they were not influenced by any secular models of psychology…Thus we need to consider very seriously their counseling methods.”[1] Father of Puritanism, William Perkins provides us with a model of pastoral counseling, both in theory and in practice. Perkins is often cited as the father of Puritan casuistry as Joel Beeke notes, “William Perkins, the renowned preacher at Great St. Andrew’s Church, Cambridge, was the first to bring Puritan casuistry to ‘some form of method and art.’.”[2] Casuistry in the Puritan context is a broad term as Ian Breward notes, “ It included many subjects…which nowadays would be allotted to systematic and practical theology, psychology, and apologetics, as well as dealing with issues which we would consider belonged to the province of ethics or moral theology.”[3] Perkins held and reflected this broad understanding which he both reflected upon in his writings and demonstrated in pastoral practice.
Ian Breward notes of Perkins, “The cure of afflicted consciences was, he held, part of the work of Christ’s prophetic office, which He has now committed to ministers of the gospel. One is not surprised to find that Perkins spent his Sundays resolving problems of conscience.”[4] Perkins practiced pastoral counseling in a period, line our own, that was no stranger to affliction. As one biographer notes of Perkins context, “According to one estimate, twenty-five percent of families lived in poverty. Vagrancy was a problem across the land. Drought and famine were common occurrences. All of this was compounded by the absence of modern amenities including medical care. In sum, Perkins ministered in a day in which affliction was the daily experience of many.”[5] Despite the amenities offered by modern society pastors still minister in a day and age where affliction is common.
[1] Timothy J. Keller, “Puritan Resources for Biblical Counseling.” Journal of Pastoral Practice 9, no. 3 (January 1, 1988), 12-13.
[2] Joel R. Beeke and Mark Jones, A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 931.
[3] Ian Breward , “The Casuistry of William Perkins,” in vol 2 of Puritan Papers ed. J. 1. Packer (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2001), 221.
[4] Breward, “The Casuistry of William Perkins,” 221.
[5] Joel R. Beeke and J. Stephen Yuille, William Perkins, Bitesize Biographies (Welwyn Garden City, England: EP Books, 2015), 91.
Puritans & Pastoring 