What do you think?
Rate this book
Catholicity and the Covenant of Works: James Ussher and the Reformed Tradition
James Ussher (1581-1656), one of the most important religious scholars and Protestant leaders of the seventeenth century, helped shape the Church of Ireland and solidify its national identity. In Catholicity and the Covenant of Works , Harrison Perkins addresses the development of Christian doctrine in the Reformed tradition, paying particular attention to the ways in which Ussher adopted various ideas from the broad Christian tradition to shape his doctrine of the covenant of works, which he utilized to explain how God related to humanity both before and after the fall into sin.
Perkins highlights the ecumenical premises that underscored Reformed doctrine and the major role that Ussher played in codifying this doctrine, while also shedding light on the differing perspectives of the established churches of Ireland and England. Catholicity and the Covenant of Works considers how Ussher developed the doctrine of a covenant between God and Adam that was based on law, and illustrates how he related the covenant of works to the doctrines of predestination, Christology, and salvation.
Perkins highlights the ecumenical premises that underscored Reformed doctrine and the major role that Ussher played in codifying this doctrine, while also shedding light on the differing perspectives of the established churches of Ireland and England. Catholicity and the Covenant of Works considers how Ussher developed the doctrine of a covenant between God and Adam that was based on law, and illustrates how he related the covenant of works to the doctrines of predestination, Christology, and salvation.
312 pages, Hardcover
Published September 1, 2020
2 people are currently reading
32 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
July 5, 2023
This book is a truly excellent one. When I first heard about this project, while the author was working on his PhD thesis, I wondered how it would contribute to our knowledge of either James Ussher or the doctrine of the covenants in general. Harrison Perkins' use of previously ignored and, in some cases, untranslated manuscript sources has served to give the monograph a level of value way beyond what I was expecting.
Some works of historical theology do little more than summarise an old writer's printed writings. While there is a place for that sort of work, it is usually best confined to journal articles or essays in edited collections. In this case, the manuscript sources really set it apart as a work of great significance, as these sources further helped to demonstrate how the covenant of works was a crucial component in Ussher's theological system. Ussher's articulation of the covenant of works reminds us that the doctrine is inextricably linked to Catholic Christology, and, in like manner, is crucial to understanding the Reformed approach to the work of Christ and to soteriology.
The author also does a very good job of situating Ussher in his Irish context, recognising his dependence on theologians who preceded him such as Robert Rollock and William Perkins, while also pointing out some divergences between Ussher and his Reformed antecedents and contemporaries. I am not entirely convinced of the author's analysis concerning Perkins and the prelapsarian covenant of works, but that point is only a minor one.
One really interesting point was the assertion that Ussher was a supralapsarian. This observation is fascinating because Ussher is usually viewed as a moderate Calvinist owing to his hypothetical universalism, which is probably something of an oversimplification as the supralapsarian and anti-well-meant offer stalwart, William Twisse, was also a hypothetical universalist. It is another reminder that objective historical research undermines the simplistic taxonomies that often prevail in the modern Reformed world.
Some works of historical theology do little more than summarise an old writer's printed writings. While there is a place for that sort of work, it is usually best confined to journal articles or essays in edited collections. In this case, the manuscript sources really set it apart as a work of great significance, as these sources further helped to demonstrate how the covenant of works was a crucial component in Ussher's theological system. Ussher's articulation of the covenant of works reminds us that the doctrine is inextricably linked to Catholic Christology, and, in like manner, is crucial to understanding the Reformed approach to the work of Christ and to soteriology.
The author also does a very good job of situating Ussher in his Irish context, recognising his dependence on theologians who preceded him such as Robert Rollock and William Perkins, while also pointing out some divergences between Ussher and his Reformed antecedents and contemporaries. I am not entirely convinced of the author's analysis concerning Perkins and the prelapsarian covenant of works, but that point is only a minor one.
One really interesting point was the assertion that Ussher was a supralapsarian. This observation is fascinating because Ussher is usually viewed as a moderate Calvinist owing to his hypothetical universalism, which is probably something of an oversimplification as the supralapsarian and anti-well-meant offer stalwart, William Twisse, was also a hypothetical universalist. It is another reminder that objective historical research undermines the simplistic taxonomies that often prevail in the modern Reformed world.
February 7, 2021
I probably have a slight bias towards liking this book since I know the author well (he is my minister) and like him a lot. But, getting my obvious bias out the way, I think this is a very good book!
This is definitely not a lay-level book. While Dr. Perkins/Harrison does do a very good job of explaining most of the background to the topic if I hadn't read PPRD vol 1. I would probably have quite a hard time following along with a quick reference to Voetians or Coeccians or grasping the significance (or what it even is) of Ramist logic. This isn't Harrisons fault, it's simply because this book is an academic imprint and not for lay-level readers.
The book starts out with a brief introduction to Archbishop James Ussher the man and the world that he was living in. Though someone most people have probably not heard of he was probably one of, it not the, foremost academic theologians of his time. I is remarkable to learn that he was so respected that, despite being an ardent royalist, when he died in the Interregnum the Book of Common Prayer was legalised just for the day of his funeral! That level of esteem surely makes it worth reading a bit about him.
Despite the density of the book Harrison is an enjoyable writer. His polemical writing is generous to the authors, but funny to read as he takes them to task. Harrison plainly lays his cards out early on that he sees Barths historical method as deeply flawed and Mullers as the way to go (something I am in complete agreement with). Much of the book is devoted to dealing with inaccurate scholarship that takes a Barthian (or even Hegelian) reading of history and therefore finds it hard to account for Ussher's actual theology, contorting it to fit imposed categories. The idea that each generation is filled with a variety of different views and individuals, rather than just a collection of monolithic groups, seems like something that should be obvious, but maybe perhaps I just need to spend more time with 20th century German Realists.
There is lots that I found very helpful in here (and parts that I wished there were longer excurses). Harrison helps guide the reader though some of the early development of the Covenant of Works (CoW), glancing the patristic and medieval period, but focusing in on the Reformation and Second Reformation periods. I was particularly interested in the Catholic theologian who espoused a form of the doctrine (highlighting just how ecumenical it is) and wished there had been more on that (though that was just a side point). There is significant work in showing how an intellectualist or voluntarist approach to natural law had a significant result in how people approached the CoW, with Ussher being shown to be a strong intellectualist, which gave him many of the tools he needed to develop the doctrine further than the more voluntarist previous generation.
Another thread of the book is to point out how the term "Puritan" is a bit meaningless. Was Ussher a Puritan? Doctrinally he was pretty much completely on-board with the most rigorous of them, but politically he was an ardent conformist. The Laudian/Puritan dichotomy (or, you could say, Ramist Bifurcation) is more helpful as a quick explanation, but fails pretty quickly when you start to get to actual historical figures like Ussher. By bringing this concept out Harrison helps to emphasise the need for more nuance in further research around this period of history.
I thought I needed to add that Harrison also draws in many of the newly unearthed manuscripts that he found while writing this work, which certainly put it into the category of cutting edge scholarship.
Overall, I would recommend this book to people with a fair bit of background knowledge around the English Second Reformation.
This is definitely not a lay-level book. While Dr. Perkins/Harrison does do a very good job of explaining most of the background to the topic if I hadn't read PPRD vol 1. I would probably have quite a hard time following along with a quick reference to Voetians or Coeccians or grasping the significance (or what it even is) of Ramist logic. This isn't Harrisons fault, it's simply because this book is an academic imprint and not for lay-level readers.
The book starts out with a brief introduction to Archbishop James Ussher the man and the world that he was living in. Though someone most people have probably not heard of he was probably one of, it not the, foremost academic theologians of his time. I is remarkable to learn that he was so respected that, despite being an ardent royalist, when he died in the Interregnum the Book of Common Prayer was legalised just for the day of his funeral! That level of esteem surely makes it worth reading a bit about him.
Despite the density of the book Harrison is an enjoyable writer. His polemical writing is generous to the authors, but funny to read as he takes them to task. Harrison plainly lays his cards out early on that he sees Barths historical method as deeply flawed and Mullers as the way to go (something I am in complete agreement with). Much of the book is devoted to dealing with inaccurate scholarship that takes a Barthian (or even Hegelian) reading of history and therefore finds it hard to account for Ussher's actual theology, contorting it to fit imposed categories. The idea that each generation is filled with a variety of different views and individuals, rather than just a collection of monolithic groups, seems like something that should be obvious, but maybe perhaps I just need to spend more time with 20th century German Realists.
There is lots that I found very helpful in here (and parts that I wished there were longer excurses). Harrison helps guide the reader though some of the early development of the Covenant of Works (CoW), glancing the patristic and medieval period, but focusing in on the Reformation and Second Reformation periods. I was particularly interested in the Catholic theologian who espoused a form of the doctrine (highlighting just how ecumenical it is) and wished there had been more on that (though that was just a side point). There is significant work in showing how an intellectualist or voluntarist approach to natural law had a significant result in how people approached the CoW, with Ussher being shown to be a strong intellectualist, which gave him many of the tools he needed to develop the doctrine further than the more voluntarist previous generation.
Another thread of the book is to point out how the term "Puritan" is a bit meaningless. Was Ussher a Puritan? Doctrinally he was pretty much completely on-board with the most rigorous of them, but politically he was an ardent conformist. The Laudian/Puritan dichotomy (or, you could say, Ramist Bifurcation) is more helpful as a quick explanation, but fails pretty quickly when you start to get to actual historical figures like Ussher. By bringing this concept out Harrison helps to emphasise the need for more nuance in further research around this period of history.
I thought I needed to add that Harrison also draws in many of the newly unearthed manuscripts that he found while writing this work, which certainly put it into the category of cutting edge scholarship.
Overall, I would recommend this book to people with a fair bit of background knowledge around the English Second Reformation.
January 11, 2024
An excellent example of historical theology: well written, laser focus on the CoW and relevant theological loci.
tldr: the covenant of works isn’t an innovation and has long-armed implications.
tldr: the covenant of works isn’t an innovation and has long-armed implications.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews