For the present promoters of catholicity don’t simply go about urging continuity with the past and the value of reading outside of our own generation. If that is all they meant, one could not utter a fair critique of them, unless it be that they got so far carried away as to become pedantic and devoid of good works. No, their fault is that they have made peace with Rome (and the East) and largely taken the fire of sincerity and power out of the Reformation.

The topic of catholicity has been fashionable in recent years. A party of Protestant theologians has been emphasizing the idea within the church and the academy, particularly among the Reformed and Baptists. Central to this movement is the appeal to past sources as places not only of doctrine, but as justifying the movement itself: one frequently hears catholicity’s proponents appeal to past figures like the Puritans or the Reformers, and arguing that as they drew upon the early creeds or ancient teachers to buttress their teaching, so also is it appropriate for present theologians to draw from the past, especially the same sources. The present movement of catholicity and retrieval is precedented, in other words, if we may risk using that overused word.[1]

Among the examples of such a trend has been Reformed Catholicity: The Promise of Retrieval for Theology and Biblical Interpretation by Michael Allen and Scott Swain. While it is not the definitive treatment of the Reformed catholicity movement (and foreswears purporting to be such),[2] it gives a good idea of what that movement entails. Early in the book they cite the Puritan William Perkins’s book A Reformed Catholike (published 1598) as a past example of the approach that they commend today.[3]

The book is cited positively by others. Presbyterian Derrick Brite wrote an article since withdrawn, extolling Perkins’s approach as represented by the book. Both he and Reformed Catholicity commend Perkins’s definition that “by a Reformed Catholic, I understand anyone that holds the same necessary heads of religion with the Roman Church: yet so as he pares off and rejects all errors in doctrine, whereby the said religion is corrupted.”[4]

Anyone who turns from the book’s admirers to the book itself will find that, to put it mildly, Perkins had to do a mighty lot of paring and rejecting. The book is irenic only to be polemic, and it expends so much time dispelling Rome’s errors that one sometimes wonders that he bothered giving any grounds of agreement at all. For example, in discussing merit (ch. 5), his entire consent with Rome consists of:

Touching merits, we consent in two conclusions with them. The first conclusion, that merits are so far forth necessary, that without them there can be no salvation.

The second, that Christ our Mediator & Redeemer, is the root and fountain of all merit.

He then spends 450 words giving the Protestant dissent; about 900 giving six reasons why we dissent; and over 1,300 words answering papist objections to our position. In discussing the worship of saints departed, his agreement is so little an agreement that we wonder it can be called such: for it is not religious ‘worship’ he approves, but historical remembrance, imitation, and gratitude to God for our forerunners.

Granting that most chapters are not so imbalanced and that he does approvingly cite ancient writers like Augustine or Basil, one can be forgiven for thinking that his method is rather ambitious; for the paring makes up so much of the book, and the agreements exist so much only to be grounds of paring, that perhaps a straight polemic would have been better. But that is a question of method, and however it may be answered, it is a little more to our point to note that the grounds of agreement that Perkins forwards are not those which are typically emphasized by the present proponents of catholicity. The current catholicity emphasizes classical theology proper and Christology, especially as represented in creeds such as the Nicene, plus a fondness for certain medieval and ancient teachers (especially Aquinas and Augustine), and some scholasticism and Platonism. Yet other than Augustine, whom he quotes liberally, Perkins scarcely mentions most of these things in A Reformed Catholike. His entire list of subjects is:

1. 1. Free Will
   2. Original Sin
   3. Assurance of Salvation
   4. Justification of a Sinner
   5. Of Merits
   6. Satisfactions for Sin
   7. Of Traditions
   8. Of Vows
   9. Of Images
   10. Of Real Presence
   11. The Sacrifice of the Mass
   12. Of Fasting
   13. The State of Perfection
   14. Worshipping of Saints Departed
   15. Intercession of Saints
   16. Implicit Faith
   17. Of Purgatory
   18. Of the Supremacy
   19. Of the Efficacy of the Sacraments
   20. Of Faith
   21. Of Repentance
   22. The Sins of the Roman Church

Note that list does not contain such topics as Platonism, creeds and confessions, the Council of Nicaea, scholasticism, the teachers of the early church, Thomas Aquinas, eternal generation, the Trinity, theology proper, or other favorites of the contemporary promoters of retrieval and catholicity.

Thus also when you examine the particulars of the text. Perkins mentions Aquinas once, that he might oppose him for teaching the propriety of idolatry (180).[5] The Council of Nicaea he mentions only to say that its canons had been altered after the fact to prove Rome’s supremacy (349), the veracity of which episode I will not discuss now. The Apostles Creed is brought forth primarily to prove where Rome departs from it (42-43, 54, 133, 277), and especially in Perkins’s closing appeal to “all favorers of the Roman religion” to see that said religion is opposed to catholic faith as represented in the Ten Commandments, Lord’s Prayer, Apostles Creed, and baptism and the Lord’s Supper (354ff.).

The other scholastics are brought forth in varied approval and (mainly) derogation, Perkins appealing to Gabriel Biel to prove that “Papists make Christ’s satisfaction imperfect, in that they do add a supply by human satisfactions” (119-120). Perkins says of repentance that the Romanists’ “third abuse is, that they make repentance to be not only a virtue, but also a sacrament: whereas for the space of a thousand years after Christ, and upward, it was not reckoned among the sacraments: yea it seems that Lumbard was one of the first that called it a sacrament: and the school-men after him disputed of the matter and form of this sacrament: not able any of them certainly to de­fine, what should be the outward element” (322). “Lumbard” (Peter Lombard) is cited somewhat positively for not daring to define with certainty what Rome later did regarding Christ’s presence in the Mass (“If it be asked what conversion this is, whether formal, or substantial, or of an other kind, I am not able to define,” 197), but he also appears  as teaching the mistaken doctrine that departed saints pray that their merits will be applied to saints still on Earth (“’I think,’ saith he, speaking of one that is but of mean goodness, ‘that he as it were passing by the fire shall be saved by the MERITS and intercessions of the heavenly Church; which doth always make intercession for the faithful by request and merit, till Christ shall be complete in his members,’” 265). Anselm is quoted approvingly on imputation (69) and trust in Christ alone (313), the latter ventured with some hesitance (the things cited were only “supposed to be questions of Anselm”). There seems to be no mention of Occam, Scotus, Bonaventure, Abelard, or Albert the Great, and Bernard, while quoted approvingly several times, is not generally accounted a scholastic.[6]

But to our larger point, whether sensible or dubious, the grounds upon which Perkins drew his agreements and disagreements with Rome are mainly different from those upon which the present proponents of catholicity draw them. One could say that is because he took it for granted that we are in agreement viz., such things as the Trinity and Christ’s two natures, and on that account did not think it necessary to much mention them. Or again, that he drew heavily upon figures from the ancient and medieval church because he regarded them as being in continuity with the Reformation. Perhaps; but his demeanor toward Rome is still different from that of the contemporary catholicity promoters, and his use of the past different as well.

For the present promoters of catholicity don’t simply go about urging continuity with the past and the value of reading outside of our own generation. If that is all they meant, one could not utter a fair critique of them, unless it be that they got so far carried away as to become pedantic and devoid of good works. No, their fault is that they have made peace with Rome (and the East) and largely taken the fire of sincerity and power out of the Reformation.

If you review their works you will see that many of them still formally promote, sometimes with great erudition, historical Protestant doctrine. But their hearts are not in it, and their subsequent behavior derives it of all edifying power whatsoever. For having laid down that Rome is disastrously wrong and the Reformation right about things of eternal consequence such as justification, they then turn about and keep company with those teachers of error, offering them digital platforms and commending their works and otherwise associating with them.

Nothing so much deprives doctrine of its credibility in the eyes of others as the accompanying behavior of its proponents. If a man says that Rome is disastrously wrong about justification and eternal salvation, and then goes out and recommends works by members of said communion or attends conferences with them, he instantly destroys the efficacy of his doctrine in the minds of his hearers. Scripture everywhere propounds the duty of opposing false doctrine and refusing company and attention to those that promote it (Deut. 13; Prov. 13:20; Matt. 24:4; Rom. 16:17; 1 Cor. 5:11; 15:33; Eph. 5:5-6; 2 Thess. 3:14; 2 Tim. 3:1-9; 2 Jn. 1:10-11).

Yet our catholicity crowd has forgotten this. They teach that a man distorts the gospel by human tradition, which scripture says means he must be resisted and is to be accounted accursed (Gal. 1:6-9); and then they turn about and endorse his books or quote him favorably.[7] They say that Aquinas is essential to recovering orthodoxy, forgetting that he taught the propriety of idolatry and that God says to avoid any professing believer who is an idolater (1 Cor. 10:14; 1 Jn. 5:21).

Thus do we see the difference between them and Perkins. Perkins saw Rome’s errors and said it was the whore of Babylon – he actually starts with an extended exposition of Revelation on that point (1-7) – and that “we take it to be no Church of God” (333), the pope being antichrist (290-94); for “the popish Church and God’s Church are mingled like chaff and corn in one heap” (334). By contrast, the authors of Reformed Catholicity have invited a Romanist to lecture at their seminary and the Center for Classical Theology has invited the same Romanist to participate in its annual lecture. Someone does not do such things if he truly believes that said communion buries the gospel in human tradition and leads people to destruction.[8] He recoils in horror and anger, much as our Lord was wrathful and spoke of the scribes as vipers and whitewashed tombs (Matt. 23).

This is the difference between the catholicity of Perkins and that of today. He said, in effect, ‘you’re partly right, so come out of Rome so you can come into the full light and be saved.’ To all appearances, our present catholicity promoters are interested in finding common ground with Rome rather for sake of peace than for calling people to repentance. They seem to take it for granted that orthodox theology proper and Christology mean the people in question are fellow Christians, and ignorantly appeal to the past as though our forebears used the same low standard.[9]

There is no unity of spirit between those two approaches. The one comes across as both sincere and prudent, and emphasizes similarity only the better to highlight dissimilarity and call to repentance; the other, as hypocritical and shortsighted, and as emphasizing similarity for its own sake. The one is prophetic in the good sense, the other scribal in the worst sense. Let the reader determine which is the true catholicity worthy of remembrance, and which the front for unity (however well-intended) with false teachers.

Tom Hervey is a member of Friendship Presbyterian Church in Laurens County, SC. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not of necessity reflect those of his church or its leadership or other members. He welcomes comments at the email address provided with his name. He is also author of Reflections on the Word: Essays in Protestant Scriptural Contemplation, and helped modernize Volume I of James Hervey’s classic dialogue on evangelical faith, Theron and Aspasio, available now at Monergism.

[1] Albeit not so much misused as its negative counterpart, unprecedented.

[2] “Our purpose here is not to develop a full-blown dogmatics of retrieval but rather to offer exploratory excursions into some of the major theological places where we have found examples and principles of Reformed theology that might commend an embrace of Christian tradition (both catholic and Protestant)” (p. 13, Kindle edition).

[3] Others say it was published in 1597, but the copy I have at hand says 1598. Other than the title, most quotes have had their spelling modernized.

[4] J.V. Fesko has also cited the book approvingly.

[5] He calls him “Thomas of Watering,” an attempt to literally anglicize his name, Aquinas representing Thomas’s nativity in Aquino, which seems to have gotten its name from the abundance of water in its vicinity.

[6] He is regarded as a monastic and mystical thinker; and regardless of whether a scholastic vs. mystical (or monastic) distinction is valid, the retrievers are bent on drawing on both: hence Credo magazine has had recent issues on both Reformed scholasticism and the mystical practice of lectio divina (much loved by monks), the latter issue of which included an article by a director at an abbey and one by Greg Peters, a professor of monastic studies at Nashotah House.

[7] Of note here are Credo’s book awards for 2023, which I considered here.

[8] In interests of fairness, if anyone can make a case that the Roman in question is not inclined to adhere to traditional Romish doctrine but has shown fruit of sincere conversion and sound doctrine, he is requested to send it via correspondence to the address in my byline at the bottom of this article. I see no such evidence, but it would please me to be wrong on that point.

[9] Comp. Perkins on Rome’s doctrine of faith: “Hereupon they build: that if a man know some necessary points of religion, as the doctrine of the godhead, of the trinity, of Christ’s incarnation, and of our redemption, &c. it is needless to know the rest by a particular or distinct knowledge, and it suffi­ceth to give his consent to the church, and to believe as the pastors believe. Behold a ruinous building upon a rotten foundation: for faith contains a knowledge of things to be believed, and knowledge is of the nature of faith: and nothing is believed that is not known. Isa. 53. 11” And let us never forget the stinging rebuke of James 2:19: “You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!”