Bryan Spinks in his study of the sacramental theology of the two Elizabethan theologians, Richard Hooker and William Perkins (Spinks, 1999), observes that while Hooker has received much attention, Perkins has received hardly any, despite the fact that Perkins was one of the most popular and widely read theologians in England during and following Elizabethan times (Spinks, 1999: 2-3).  Spinks suggests that the reason for this situation may be that Hooker and his writings are well known in the present day and described as ‘Anglican’, whereas Perkins, described as ‘Puritan’, is not, with no modern edition of his works available.  The words Puritan and Calvinist have been used as terms of abuse, with the implication that they somehow imply a deviation from authentic Anglicanism (Spinks, 1999: 3).  Part of Spinks’ purpose then seems to be making ‘another face’ of Anglican Elizabethan theology more well known.  The faces of other writers of the period from the 1580s to the 1640s deserve attention as well, he suggests, including Richard Greenham, Richard Stibbes, John Dod and Laurence Chaderton, although this is beyond Spinks study.  Indeed Spinks “study proceeds on the assumption that both William Perkins and Richard Hooker, neither of whom were ever suspended from the ministry of the Church of England, may be regarded as Anglicans” (Spinks, 1999: 8).

This case study relies heavily on the material presented by Spinks (1999) in order to assess the eucharistic theology of William Perkins.

In his work of 1590 entitled The Foundation of Christian Religion Gathered into Six Principles, Perkins defines a sacrament as: “A sign to represent, a seal to confirm, an instrument to convey Christ and all his benefits to them that do believe in him” (Perkins, Works, 1616-1618: I, 7, cited in Spinks, 1999, 39).  In another  work, entitled A Golden Chaine however, Perkins gives a fuller definition, saying:

“ … a Sacrament is not absolutely necessary, but only as it is a prop and stay for faith to lean upon.  For it cannot entitle us into the inheritance of the sons of God, as the covenant doth, but only by reason of faith going before it, it doth seal that which before was bestowed upon us.” (Perkins, Works, 1616-1618: I, 72, cited in Spinks, 1999, 39).

That which was ‘before bestowed upon us’ is “the ordo salutis founded in the Trinity, and the eternal decrees of double predestination and the covenant of grace” (Spinks, 1999: 39).  Perkins sacramental theology is therefore to be found in this chain of salvation.  In Spinks’ view, Perkins considers “the covenant of grace is thus the outward execution of election, and the inward means is the mystical action.  From this comes the gift of grace” (Spinks, 1999: 65).  Perkins expresses this in these words:

“For there is a most near and straight union between Christ and all that belong in him: and in this union Christ with all his benefits according to the tenor of the covenant of grace, is made ours really: and therefore we may stand just before God by his righteousness, it being indeed his, because it is in him, as in a subject; yet so, as it is also ours, because it is given unto us of God.” (Perkins, Works, 1616-1618: I, 300, cited in Spinks, 1999, 65).

It is therefore within this order of salvation that Perkins speaks of the sacraments.  Christ is given in word and sacraments and the sacraments are seen by Perkins to confer grace even though grace is not tied to the sacraments.  He says:

“The word of God confers grace (for it is the power of God to salvation to them that believe) and this it doth by signifying the will of God, by the ear of the mind: now every sacrament is the word of God made visible to the eye: the sacrament therefore confers grace by virtue of his signification, and by reason it is a pledge by the appointment of God, of his mercy and goodness.  It may be said, a sacrament is not only a sign and seal but it also an instrument to convey the grace of God to us.  Answ. It is not an instrument having the grace of God tied unto it, or shut up in it: but an instrument to which grace is present by assistance in the right use thereof: because in and with the right use of the sacrament, God confers grace; and thus is it an instrument, and no otherwise, that is, a moral and not a physical instrument.” (Perkins, Works, 1616-1618: II, 260, cited in Spinks, 1999, 66).

The sacraments can therefore be said, in Perkins view, to confer grace because they are the word of God made visible.  Sacraments are not physical instruments or means of conferring grace, but instruments only of the word of God.  Grace is not tied to or contained in sacraments.  In referring to the more traditional and Catholic view of sacraments and grace, Perkins wrote:

“ … by the work wrought, and that as the pen writeth by the hand of the writer, and that of itself, the hand moving; so the Sacraments of themselves sanctify, being administered by the Minister: but this is erroneous, for the Word and Sacrament are both one nature, the Sacraments being none other but the word made visible: but the word read or uttered lieth not by the work done, but by being believed and applied by faith: therefore no more do the Sacraments by being administered, but by apprehending Christ in them; grace must be conferred by the spirit of grace, and not by the virtues of any action in the Sacraments.” (Perkins, Works, 1616-1618: III, 578-579, cited in Spinks, 1999, 67).

Sacraments and sacramental actions then, have no power and grace in them per se, only as they make visible the word of God.  Sacraments are one in nature with the Word and the effect of the sacraments is not in their performance, but in the word believed and applied by faith.  Perkins however, goes further, and argues that sacraments only have significance for those who are in the covenant of grace and therefore elected to salvation.  He says:

“And so it is with God’s Church at this day; in it there are two sorts of men; one, which are baptized and brought up in the church, hear the word, and receive the Sacraments; but yet are not saved, because they have not the promise of the covenant effectually rooted in their hearts.  The other sort are they, which being baptized in the Church, hear the word effectually, and receive the Lord’s Supper worthily to their salvation; because God doth establish his Covenant in their hearts.” (Perkins, Works, 1616-1618: III, 118, cited in Spinks, 1999, 67).

Sacraments then are reserved for the elect, with Perkins arguing that “the reprobate, though God offer the whole Sacrament unto them, yet they receive the signs alone without the things signified by the signs: because the sign without the right use thereof, is not a Sacrament to the receiver of it” (Perkins, Works, 1616-1618: I, 72, cited in Spinks, 1999, 67).  “For Perkins, therefore, sacraments are inextricably linked within the chain of salvation, and ultimately are the outworkings of the will of God expressed in election” (Spinks, 1999: 67).  Although Perkins speaks of sign and signified, they are not linked in any realist sense.  Grace is not linked to outward signs and received through sacraments and sacramental action, rather grace is linked to predestination.  He says:

“The grace and mercy of God is free, and not tied or bound to the outward elements.  John 3.8. The wind bloweth where it listeth, that is, God gives grace, and vouchsafeth favour, to whom, where, and when it pleaseth him.  And hence it is, that they whom he would not have perish, but come to eternal life, shall be saved, though they be not partakers of this Sacrament.” (Perkins, Works, 1616-1618: II, 74, cited in Spinks, 1999, 73).

Grace is received by the elect (‘they whom he would not have perish’) and is not tied or linked to the Eucharist, to the elements or to good works.  Any linking of the sign and the signified in the Eucharist is related to use only.  In criticising transubstantiation he says that transubstantiation “quite overthroweth the sacramental union, namely, the proportion which is betwixt the sign and the thing signified” (Perkins, Works, 1616-1618: I, 76, cited in Spinks, 1999, 82).  It seems that the ‘proportion’ between sign and signified is no way realist for Perkins, since there is no linking between the outward signs and the grace of the signified.  Sign and signified therefore seem to be at some distance from one another.  This seems to indicate that Perkins eucharistic theology is nominalist, with sign and signified remaining self-enclosed and separated entities.  This nominalist separation is shown in the model (below) which Perkins uses to show the sacramental relation between the sign and the signified in the Eucharist.  On the left hand side of the model is the sign (‘things sensible’ such as bread and wine, the minister and the Christian receiver) and the sacramental actions (taking bread and wine in hands, consecration, breaking, giving, eating and drinking), whereas on the right hand side of the model is the signified (‘things spiritual’ such as the body and blood of Christ) and the ‘spiritual and internal actions’ (such as sealing Christ, the offering of Christ, the application of Christ).

Figure 1:  Model of the Sacramental Relation in the Eucharist as developed by William Perkins (taken from Spinks, 1999: 83).

Down the centre of the model is a firm double line, separating the ‘sensible and external’ from the ‘spiritual and internal’, thereby suggesting that the sacramental principle has nothing to do with Perkins’ scheme.  In between these lines are written the words ‘The union of the sign and the thing signified’.  Despite the word ‘union’ there seems to be no union indicated in this model.  Sign remains firmly on the left and signified remains firmly on the right.  The sacramental relation seems to be that of nominalist separation where the sign is described as a separate and self-enclosed entity from the signified, another separate and self-enclosed entity.  The model indicates a nominalist analysis of what happens in the Eucharist, with no realism linking or identifying sign and signified suggested by the model.  The nature of the union of the sign and the signified, indicated by the double line and title down the centre of the model, remains uncertain.  Realism seems rejected by Perkins and nominalism affirmed.

Perkins also rejects any notion of immoderate realism in relation to sacrifice in the Eucharist.  In speaking of what he understands to be the position of the Roman Catholics, he says:

“They make the Eucharist to be a real, external, or bodily sacrifice offered unto God: holding and teaching, that the minister is a priest properly: and that in this sacrament he offers Christ’s body and blood to God the Father really and properly under the forms of bread and wine.  We acknowledge no real, outward, or bodily sacrifice for the remission of sins, but only Christ’s oblation on the cross once offered.” (Perkins, Works, 1616-1618: I, 594, cited in Spinks, 1999, 84).

The sacrifice of Christ is a past event on the cross, which cannot be present in any real way in an outward sense, that is, in the Eucharist or in the elements of bread and wine. 

In relation to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist he also rejects immoderate realism, saying:

“We differ not touching the presence itself, but only the manner of presence.  For though we hold a real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament, yet do we not take it to be local, bodily, or substantial, but spiritual and mystical, to be signs by sacramental relation, and to the communicants by faith alone.” (Perkins, Works, 1616-1618: I, 590, cited in Spinks, 1999, 88).

In the Eucharist then the outward signs and actions are the means whereby the receiver is reminded of the covenant between God and people.  Perkins states that:

“These outward actions are a second seal, set by the Lord’s own hand unto his covenant.  And they do give every receiver to understand, that as God doth bless the bread and wine, to preserve and strengthen the body of the receiver: so Christ apprehended and received by faith, shall nourish him, and preserve both body and soul unto eternal life.” (Perkins, Works, 1616-1618: I, 8, cited in Spinks, 1999, 85).

Sacraments therefore, such as the Eucharist, help the receiver to ‘understand’ the covenant or as a seal of that covenant procured in the past through the actions of Christ, predestined as grace to the elect by God.  Christ’s grace is not apprehended and received by sacraments, but by the faith of the elect in the past actions of Christ.  This does not mean however that the word ‘sacrifice’ cannot be applied to the Eucharist.  Indeed Perkins, in referring to the early Church Fathers observes that they used the name sacrifice in a certain way, that is:

“ … metonymically, because in these oblations there was a representation of that sacrifice that was offered upon the cross, or like a spectacle or show wherein the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood accomplished on the cross, is shown and delineate unto the eyes of the faithful. Described as it were in a table: and in this sense is called Unbloody.” (Perkins, Works, 1616-1618: II, 550, cited in Spinks, 1999, 89).

This means that for Perkins:

“We offer an unbloody, and reasonable Sacrifice.  And Clement in his constitutions … saith, that all the bloody Sacrifices of unreasonable creatures were by Christ changed into a reasonable, unbloody, and mystical Sacrifice which is celebrated in remembrance of his death, by the signs of his body and blood.  We celebrate an unbloody sacrifice by our duty in the Churches, saith the Council of Ephesus unto Nestorius.  In Basil’s Liturgy, the offering is called the unbloody sacrifice of mind and soul.” (Perkins, Works, 1616-1618: II, 551, cited in Spinks, 1999, 89).

Any sacrifice in relation to the Eucharist is moderate (unbloody), in remembrance of Christ’s death.  Christ is not offered in any substantial way, but in representation in a sacramental manner.  For Perkins however, this does not seem to have any realist connotations.  He explains this further by saying:

“That the very body of Christ is offered in the Lord’s supper.  For as we take the bread, to be the body of Christ sacramentally by resemblance and no otherwise: so the breaking of the bread is sacramentally the sacrificing or offering of Christ upon the cross.  And thus the Fathers have termed the Eucharist an immolation of Christ, because it is a commemoration of his sacrifice upon the cross.” (Perkins, Works, 1616-1618: I, 593, cited in Spinks, 1999, 90-91).

The sacrifice then is representation only, not otherwise in any realist sense.  Christ’s sacrifice is not linked with the bread and wine or with the actions of the Eucharist in any other way than representation or commemoration, says Perkins.  Indeed the representation of the sacrifice is a state of mind for the communicant, with Perkins arguing that “when we see the bread broken, and wine poured out, we are to meditate on Christ, that was crucified for us” (Perkins, Works, 1616-1618: II, 83, cited in Spinks, 1999, 91).  This meditation has an inward application for the communicant and not for the Eucharist or the elements.  This he explains by saying:

“In the supper, the breaking of the bread signifies, I. How we should be broken in humiliation for our sin: and the pouring out of the wine, how our blood and life should be shed, and poured out for our sins, if we had that that we deserve.  And secondly, they represent unto us, how the body of Christ was broken, and his blood poured out for our sins: which was content to suffer under the wrath of his Father, for our sakes: so that we see, both the sacrifices and Sacraments of the old, as also of the new Testament, all aimed at these two ends; to show us our sins, and our misery by sin; and to foretell or represent our reconciliation by Christ.” (Perkins, Works, 1616-1618: III, 17, cited in Spinks, 1999, 91).

The process being described here by Perkins seems to be a mental activity on the part of the communicant.  It is by meditation on the sacrifice of Christ that the communicant is raised heavenwards to the real presence of Christ and reminded of how Christ was sacrificed and of the presence of sin.

Perkins nonetheless, did not see the bread and wine as merely ordinary elements.  In fact he states that:

“The sacrament is honoured, received, and respected, as it is the expressive seal and sign of our mystical union with Christ, by whose body we are after an admirable manner, quickened.  Hence it is called a mystery to be trembled at, because by these creatures through the operation of the divine majesty, we are made partakers of the body and blood of Christ.” (Perkins, Works, 1616-1618: I, 590, cited in Spinks, 1999, 88).

He argues that in the blessing of the bread and wine, “by the recital of the promises, and prayers conceived to that end, doth actually separate the bread and wine received from their common unto an holy use” (Perkins, Works, 1616-1618: I, 75, cited in Spinks, 1999, 86).  It is the use to which the elements are put that separates them, not any change in substance or any addition to them or by any instantiation of Christ’s nature in the elements.  There was no realist sense of Christ’s body and blood being linked to or associated with the elements for Perkins.  He saw three meanings for the term ‘the body of Christ’, since he argued:

“The body of Christ in the Fathers’ writing, is threefold; Real, that is, the body assumed: Mystical, the Church: Sacramental, the bread in the supper.  The body of Christ taken from the altar is a figure, if we view the outward forms of bread and wine: but the truth, when we believe the body and blood of Christ to be truly there within.” (Perkins, Works, 1616-1618: II, 562, cited in Spinks, 1999, 86).

Christ’s real body was assumed to heaven, yet mystically it was the church and sacramentally it was the bread and wine of the Eucharist.  Outwardly it was only a figure, but by belief, Christ’s body and blood is truly present.  The presence of Christ however, is related to faith, and not to elements of bread and wine in the Eucharist.  Even though Perkins was able to say that “We hold and believe a presence of Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper” (Perkins, Works, 1616-1618: I, 589-590, cited in Spinks, 1999, 86) he does not seem to mean this in a realist sense, since he goes on to say:

“ … we hold and teach that Christ’s body and blood, are truly present with the bread and wine, being signs in the sacrament: but how?  Not in respect of place or coexistence: but by Sacramental relation on this manner.  When a word is uttered, the sound comes to the ear; and at the same instant, the thing signified comes to the mind; and thus by relation the word and the thing spoken of, are both present together.  Even so at the Lord’s table bread and wine must not be considered barely, as substances and creatures, but as outward signs in relation to the body and blood of Christ.” (Perkins, Works, 1616-1618: I, 590, cited in Spinks, 1999, 86-87).

For Perkins, the bread and wine are clearly more than ordinary bread and wine, but they are not identified with the body and blood in any real sense.  Even though he says that ‘Christ’s body and blood, are truly present with the bread and wine’ he does not seem to mean this is any realist sense.  His words, ‘to the mind’ are important since they confirm the nominalistic separation of bread/wine and body/blood.  In fact Perkins makes this clear in saying, “when the elements of bread and wine are present to the hand and to the mouth of the receiver, at the very same time the body and blood of Christ are represented to the mind: thus and no otherwise is Christ truly present with the signs” (Perkins, Works, 1616-1618: I, 590, cited in Spinks, 1999, 87).  This seems to be the meaning of ‘sacramental relation’.  The bread and wine present to the senses and Christ’s body and blood present to the mind is the way in which the sign is ‘with’ the signified.  Bread and wine are in the hand and mouth of the receiver and the body and blood of Christ are represented in the mind of the receiver.  The two, the presence in the hand/mouth and the representation in the mind are separate in a nominalist analysis.  This seems to be clearly represented in Perkins’ model of the sacramental relation of the Eucharist (see Figure 1 above).  The presence of Christ’s body and blood is a matter of faith, not of a presence associated with an outward sign in any realist sense.  This is confirmed in the following passage:

“Now the communion is on this manner: God the father according to the tenor of the Evangelical covenant, gives Christ in his sacrament as really and truly, as any thing can be given unto man, not by part and piecemeal (as we say) but whole Christ God and man, on this sort.  In Christ there be two natures, the Godhead, and the manhood.  The Godhead is not given in regard of substance, or essence but only in regard of efficacy, merits, and operation conveyed thence to the manhood … when God gives Christ, he gives withal at the same time the spirit of Christ, which spirit creates in the heart of the receiver the instrument of true faith, by which the heart doth really receive Christ given of God, by resting upon the promises which God hath made that he give Christ and his righteousness to every true believer.” (Perkins, Works, 1616-1618: I, 590, cited in Spinks, 1999, 87).

Christ is seen to be in the sacrament ‘really and truly’ but this is clearly not in any immoderate fashion, nor does it seem in any sense of substance or essence.  The true and real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, for Perkins, is related only to efficacy, merit and operation of Christ.  These are in the past, but it seems have effect in the present.  This seems to be an expression or realism in relation to the presence and sacrifice of Christ, whereby the spirit of Christ is present through faith by its efficacy, merit and operation.  If this is realism then it must be moderate realism, since Perkins has clearly denied any immoderate realism (see above  quotation of Perkins, Works, 1616-1618: I, 594, cited in Spinks, 1999, 84).  It seems however, that this conclusion of moderate realism in relation to Christ’s true and real presence is lessened by Perkins condition that the spirit of Christ is given to the heart of the receiver by true faith alone, through the promises of God to ‘every true believer’.  Any realist identification of the body and blood of Christ (true and real presence) and Christ’s sacrifice (its efficacy, merit and operation) then, seems to be in relation to the faith of the receiver and not to the elements.  The difficulty with any suggestion of realism however, lies in the model of the sacramental relation of the Eucharist put forward by Perkins (see Figure 1 above).  Here the spiritual is separated completely from the sensible, the sign from the signified.  There seems in this model to be no realist identification of the faith of the receiver with Christ, since the apprehension of Christ by faith and the Christian receiver’s application of Christ remains firmly on the right hand side of the model (the spiritual and internal actions).  As such they are clearly separated from the taking of the bread and cup and the eating and drinking which remain firmly on the left hand side of the model (the sensible and external actions).  The model suggests that the sign and the signified, even in the matter of the Christ’s presence and sacrifice and their relationship to the receiver, remain entirely spiritual and internal in action, since they are all on the right hand side of the model.  The model also suggests that the presence and sacrifice of Christ and the faith of the receiver have no realist identification with any sensible and external action due to the physical separation of the two parts of the model, that is the left hand side from the right hand side of the model.  This being so, it seems that there is some doubt whether Perkins is really arguing for a realist identification between the faith of the receiver and the true and real presence of Christ and the efficacy, merit and operation of Christ in the model of sacramental relation which he advances.

Christ and the communicant have real communion for Perkins but this can only be in a heavenly sense, with no real presence in the elements of the Eucharist on earth.  He expresses this in these words:

“ … seeing there is a real communion in the sacrament between Christ and every believing heart, our duty therefore is, to bestow our hearts on Christ, endeavouring to love him, and to rejoice in him, and to long after him above all things: all our affiance must be in him, and with him; we being now on earth must have our conversation in heaven.  And there is the true real presence, which the ancient Church of God hath commended unto us: for in all these liturgies these words are used, and yet are extant in the Popish-mass, Lift up your hearts: we lift them up unto the Lord.  By which words the communicants were admonished to direct their minds and their faith to Christ sitting at the right hand of God.” (Perkins, Works, 1616-1618: I, 593, cited in Spinks, 1999, 88).

The real presence for Perkins then is a heavenly thing, obtained by lifting the mind and the heart heavenwards.  Such a real presence is not seen to be in the external and sensible parts of the Eucharist on earth.

The eucharistic theology of William Perkins seems to be set within a nominalist framework, where sign and signified are seen in parallel, but without any realist identification.  Despite the use of some realist sounding phrases (Christ is ‘really and truly present’ and ‘the very body of Christ is offered in the Lord’s Supper’) the sign and the signified remain separate in Perkins’ eucharistic theology.  The sensible and external signs (bread and wine) are apart from the spiritual and internal signification (Christ’s body and blood).  This is demonstrated in Perkins’ model of the Eucharist (see Figure 1 above) where sign and signified are firmly separated.  Any presence of Christ in the Eucharist is by representation alone, since the body and blood of Christ are seen to be in heaven and in no real way present on earth in the Eucharist, other than by representation.  Sacrifice is similarly by representation only, with no realist instantiation of the sacrifice in the Eucharist in the present.  This parallelism cannot be seen as realism, since there is no linking of the sign with the signified.  The overriding aspect of Perkins’ eucharistic theology is that of predestination and covenant.  Sacraments were simply one of the links in the chain of salvation, previously determined by God, where grace was previously given to the elect.  In such a scheme there is no need for grace to be tied to sacraments since it has been previously dispensed to the elect by God and only needs to be sealed as part of the covenant predestined by God through the sacraments.