¹ Walzer, Michael, The Revolution of the Saints: A Study in the Origins of Radical Politics (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1965) 3–4, 313; also 12–13, 18, 306–7, 318.Google Scholar

² John Preston, The Breast-Plate of Faith and Loue (2d corrected ed.; London, 1630) 205 (2d pagination); Morgan, Irvonwy, Prince Charles's Puritan Chaplain (London: Allen & Unwin, 1957) 18, 76, 109–15, 117–24, 202–3 and passim; Thomas Ball, “The Life of Doctor Preston,” in Samuel Clarke, A Generall Martyrologie … Whereunto are added, The Lives of Sundry Modern Divines (London, 1651) 520.Google Scholar

³ Preston, Breast-Plate, 26 (2d pag.).

⁴ Weber, Max, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (trans. Parsons, Talcott; New York: Scribner's, 1958)Google Scholar; see also idem, “The Protestant Sects and the Spirit of Capitalism,” in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (ed. and trans. Gerth, Hans H. and Mills, C. Wright; New York: Oxford University, 1958) 302–22.Google ScholarLüthy, Herbert (“Once Again: Calvinism and Capitalism,” reprinted in Eisenstadt, S. N., ed., The Protestant Ethic and Modernization: A Comparative View [New York: Basic Books, 1968] 87–92)Google Scholar suggests that what Weber finally meant by “spirit of capitalism” is the governing structure of western society's attitudes, a rationality powerfully inimical to impulsive, spontaneous, instinctual action, which generates the pattern of all occidental culture, not merely its economic aspects. Cf. Nelson, Benjamin, “Weber's Protestant Ethic: Its Origins, Wanderings, and Foreseeable Futures,” in Glock, Charles Y. and Hammond, Phillip Q., Beyond the Classics? Essays in the Scientific Study of Religion (New York: Harper & Row, 1973) 78–80.Google Scholar

⁵ The literature on Weber is immense. See the bibliographies in Eisenstadt, Protestant Ethic and Modernization, 385–400; Little, David, Religion, Order, and Law: A Study in Pre-Revolutionary England (New York: Harper & Row, 1969) 226–37Google Scholar; Green, Robert W., ed., Protestantism, Capitalism, and Social Science: The Weber Thesis Controversy (2d ed.; Lexington, MA: Heath, 1973) 191–95; Nelson, “Weber's Protestant Ethic,” 113–30.Google Scholar

⁶ Weber, Protestant Ethic, 116, 115.

⁷ Ibid., 104, 106–7, 109–10.

⁸ Ibid., 112.

⁹ Sibbes, Richard, The Complete Works (ed. Grosart, Alexander B.; 7 vols.; Edinburgh, 1862–1864) 7. 212 #242.Google Scholar A contrary evaluation of Puritan thinking is Mitchell, Robert M., Calvin's and the Puritan's View of the Protestant Ethic (Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1979) 54Google Scholar: “Works do not produce faith or assurance of election.” Mitchell further contends that “there was not the great desire or need for assurance. Once again, this is not to say there were not some who had doubts about salvation, but ‘… these appear to have come only from the hypersensitive and were thus not an important part of the normal English ]sic] Puritan life, …” This devaluation of the importance of assurance would have surprised John Downame, who thought certain knowledge of the Spirit's indwelling “the greatest question, and the waightiest and most important case of conscience, that can bee propounded or knowne of vs” (The Christian Warfare [4th ed.; corrected and enlarged; London, 1634] 1113), and Marshall Knappen, the authority partially quoted (see Tudor Puritanism: A Chapter in the History of Idealism [Chicago: University of Chicago, 1939; Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1963] 394).Google Scholar To complete Knappen's sentence is to refute Mitchell: “While these appear to have come only from the hypersensitive and were thus not an important part of the normal Puritan life, there were enough of them to give the Puritan pastors many troublesome hours.” (It may be added that the frequent advice on how to obtain assurance indicates that more than “hypersensitive” Saints had doubts about their estate. See also Selement, George and Woolley, Bruce C., eds., Thomas Shepard's “Confessions,” in Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts: Collections, 58 [1981]Google Scholar passim, a collection of relations of religious experience from 51 people admitted to the Cambridge, Massachusetts church around 1640. Many of these accounts detail individuals’ search for assurance.) Knappen immediately goes on to confirm the link between assurance and effort that Weber surmised: “The usual solution was to go over the details of the Christian experience, minimizing its requirements in dealing with tender consciences, and finally to resort to a rather un-Protestant, but nonetheless effective, common-sense doctrine of works” (Ibid.). Although there were various methods for achieving assurance, “good works were the most common prescription.” They constitute “a sure evidence” of election. Puritan divines were acutely aware that assurance can fade, and they declared works a means to increase it. Mitchell's error on this point proceeds from what can only be called a distaste for Weber's essay delivered in a tone of captious indignation. Although his monograph contains some valuable correctives, and on numerous issues accords with what will be said here, it seems inspired by an ideal of removing any possible connection between Puritanism and what Mitchell sees as a secular (one wants to say unholy), individualistic, grasping spirit of capitalism. This perspective results in misrepresentations of Weber's thesis (he does not equate the Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism, as Mitchell implies [62–63]). It also overidealizes the Puritans (there is some justice in Weber's claim that they distrusted spontaneous amusement [Protestant Ethic, 166–67] even though one can agree with Mitchell [50] that they did not abjure worldly pleasure enjoyed in moderation).

¹⁰ Baxter, Richard, Select Practical Writings of Richard Baxter (2 vols.; New Haven, 1831) 2. 64; cf. Preston, Breast-Plate, 72 (2d pag.).Google Scholar

¹¹ Weber, Protestant Ethic, 99.

¹² Martin, Hugh, Puritanism and Richard Baxter (London: SCM, 1954) 132–37.Google Scholar Weber (Protestant Ethic, 258 n. 1) recognizes Baxter's position, but does not discuss the ramifications for his argument. Paul, Robert S. (“Weber and Calvinism: The Effects of a ‘Calling,’” CJT 11 [1965] 28) makes a similar point.Google Scholar

¹³ Protestant Ethic, 98.

¹⁴ Niesel, Wilhelm, The Theology of Calvin (trans. Knight, Harold; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1956) 159–69Google Scholar; McNeill, John T., The History and Character of Calvinism (New York: Oxford University, 1954) 201–2Google Scholar; Wendel, François, Calvin: The Origins and Development of His Religious Thought (trans. Philip Mairet; London: Harper & Row, 1963) 263–84Google Scholar; New, John F. H., Anglican and Puritan: The Basis of Their Opposition, 1558–1640 (Stanford: Stanford University, 1964) 15–19Google Scholar, 33, 77; but see also Haller, William, The Rise of Puritanism (New York: Harper & Row, 1957) 83Google Scholar, 85. Coolidge, John (The Pauline Renaissance in England: Puritanism and the Bible [Oxford: Oxford University, 1970] 115–16) points to its controversial importance during the seventeenth century, but sermons on conversion do not reflect this.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Sibbes, Works, 4. 182. Cf. John Norton, The Orthodox Evangelist (London, 1654) 84; Thomas Hooker, The Application of Redemption, books I–VIII (London, 1656) 81 [henceforth noted as Application, I–VIII, bound with books IX–X (London, 1657), henceforth noted Application, IX–X]; Preston, Breast-Plate, 11 (1st pag.); Peter Bulkeley, The Gospel-Covenant; or, The Covenant of Grace (2d enlarged and corrected ed.; London, 1651) 264.

¹⁶ Shepard, Thomas, The Works of Thomas Shepard (3 vols.; Boston, 1853; facsimile ed.; Hildesheim: Olms, 1971) 1. 49. Cf. Preston, Breast-Plate, 9, 11 (1st pag.); Hooker, Application, I–VII1 14. 81; William Gouge, The Workes of William Govge (2 vols.; London, 1627) 2. 112–13. See also Mitchell, Calvin's and Puritan's View, 45–46, though the statement that Gouge “illustrates the idea of universal atonement effectively,” is imprecise. What Gouge does proclaim is the universal offer of Christ, which is sufficient to save all (and only all) those who believe. The normative Puritan position (at least before the English Civil War) limited the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice to the Elect and rejected its universal applicability: “wee doe very willingly acknowledge that Christ dyed for all (the Scripture averring so much;) but we utterly deny, that he dyed for all and every one alike in respect of God, or as well for the damned as elect, and that effectually on Gods part. For let us weigh wel the words of Christ [sic]: I never knew you; depart from me yee workers of iniquity” (William Perkins, The Works of … William Perkins [3 vols.; London, 1626–31] 2. 621, also 609, 621–26, 628). Cf. Preston, Breast-Plate, 10–11 (1st pag.); Shepard, Works, 1. 49; Hooker, Application, I–VIII 11–23, 57–66.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See Morison, Samuel Eliot, The Intellectual Life of Colonial New England (New York: New York University, 1965) 11–12Google Scholar, who, however, goes too far in denying that the New England Puritans were “predestinarian Calvinists.” Whatever the merit of classifying them as “Calvinists” (and for a good discussion of this question, Hall, David D., “Understanding the Puritans,” in Katz, Stanley N., ed., Colonial America: Essays in Politics and Social Development [1st ed.; Boston, Little, Brown, 1971] 31–50)Google Scholar, the first generation, at least, held consistently to the doctrine of double predestination.

¹⁸ Protestant Ethic, 104.

¹⁹ Perkins, Works, 2. 18, 21; cf. Shepard, Works, 2. 351–53.

²⁰ Richard Greenham, The Works of … M. Richard Greenham (ed. Henry Holland; London, 1599) 63; Norton, Orthodox Evangelist 1. 100; Mitchell, Calvin's and Puritan's View, 40–41, 46–47.

²¹ Weber, Protestant Ethic, 112.

²² Perkins, Works, 1. 756–57; John Cotton, The way of Life (London, 1641) 437–38; Shepard, Works, 1. 221; Sibbes, Works, 6. 521. See Michaelsen, Robert, “Changes in the Puritan Concept of Calling or Vocation,” New England Quarterly 26 (1953) 319–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²³ Arthur Hildersam, CV1II Lectures Upon the Fovrth of John (2d ed.; London, 1632) 343–44; Shepard, Works, 2. 399–400; Baxter, The Life of Faith (London, 1670) 506.

²⁴ Protestant Ethic, 114–15.

²⁵ Perkins, Works, 2. 17.

²⁶ Baxter, The Saints Everlasting Rest (7th rev. ed.; London, 1658) 404^v–405^v; Sibbes, Works, 4. 198.

²⁷ Protestant Ethic, 102, 123, 105. For the effect of Calvin's personal experience on his doctrine of conversion, see Ganoczy, Alexandre, Le Jeune Calvin: Genèse et évolution de sa vocation réformatrice (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1966) 271, 286–304.Google Scholar

²⁸ Perkins, Works, 1. 17, 21; Shepard, Works, 1. 19; Preston, The Saints Qvalification (2d corrected ed.; London, 1634) 63–68; John Rogers, A Treatise of Love (2d ed.; London, 1632) 25.

²⁹ William Fenner, A Treatise of the Affections; or, the Soules Pulse (London, 1642) 66, 68; Sibbes, Works, 6. 98.

³⁰ Puritan ministers did not conceive of God's affections as merely human faculties writ divine. The Lord's essential indivisibility precludes his having qualities in the same sense that his creatures do, so that, in a strictly theological sense, it was meaningless to think of him loving or hating as people do. The phrase “God's affections” could be taken as a figurative locution evincing his incommensurability. Such niceties were probably lost on the average listener. Cf. William Ames, The Marrow of Sacred Divinity (London, 1642) I.iv.62; [Henry Finch], The Summe of Sacred Diuinitie, first Briefly & Methodically Expounded.… (London, by 1621) 21. For attribution of this work to Finch, see Prest, Wilfred R., “The Art of Law and the Law of God, Sir Henry Finch (1558–1625),” in Pennington, Donald and Thomas, Keith, Puritans and Revolutionaries: Essays in Seventeenth-Century History presented to Christopher Hill (Oxford: Oxford University, 1978) 102–8.Google Scholar

³¹ Ames, Marrow, I.xii.2. Cf. Thomas Cartwright, A Methodical Short Catechism, in John Dod and Robert Cleaver, A Plain and Familiar Exposition of the Ten Commandments (London, 1609) n.p.; Thomas Wilson, A Christian Dictionary (2d augmented ed.; London, 1616) s.v. “Guiltinesse.”

³² Thomas Hooker, The Soules Preparation for Christ (London, 1632) 123.

³³ Conscience a faculty: Perkins, Works, 1. 517; William Fenner, The Souls Lookingglasse … with a Treatise of Conscience (Cambridge, England, 1640) 230; Wilson, Christian Dictionary, 85. Conscience as act: Ames, “Conscience with the Power and Cases thereof,” in The Workes of.… William Ames (London, 1643) I.i.1–6. Sibbes (Works, 3. 209) irenically declared it the soul reflecting upon itself, a faculty, and an act, “we need not wrangle whether it be this or that.”

³⁴ Fenner, Souls Looking-glasse, 32. For the designation “practical syllogism,” see Perkins, Works, 1. 547, and Ames, “Conscience,” I.vii.15.

³⁵ Ames, “Conscience,” I.ii.l; vii.p. 15; ix.4; x.4, 10; xi.1–7; xv.17.

³⁶ Fenner, Souls Looking-glasse, 175; Hooker, Soules Preparation, 56; Wilson, Christian Dictionary, s.v. “Feare,” def. 6.

³⁷ Cotton, Way of Life, 143; Greenham, Works, 238.

³⁸ Ames, “Conscience,” I.xv.25. The “worm of conscience” often describes the torments of the damned in hell (cf. John Davenport, The Saints Anchor-Hold [London, 1661] 72); Perkins, Works, 1. 112, 465; Shepard, Works, 1. 28, 43; The Bible and Holy Scriptures [Geneva, 1560; the Geneva Bible] n. 1 on Isa 66:24), but it could be extended to include the pains living reprobates suffer that give them a foretaste of perdition (cf. Ames, “Conscience,” I.xv.25 and I.xi.7; Fenner, Souls Looking-glasse, 36, 37, 149, 243).

³⁹ Sibbes, Works, 3. 216.

⁴⁰ Shepard, Works, 2. 286, 287.

⁴¹ John Preston, The Law Out-Lawed (Edinburgh, 1631) B^v Shepard, Works, 1. 22; Davenport, Saints Anchor-Hold, 70 (cf. Hos 6:4), 71.

⁴² Fenner, Souls Looking-glasse, 71; Shepard, Works, 1. 22.

⁴³ Hooker, Application, IX–X, 367; John Preston, Remaines of … John Preston (London, 1634) 42.

⁴⁴ Shepard, Works, 1. 22.

⁴⁵ Perkins, Works, 1. 12, and see Wilson, Christian Dictionary, s.v. [“Loue”], def. 4.

⁴⁶ Perkins, Works, 1. 108; Norton, Orthodox Evangelist, 99, and see Perkins, Works, 3. 364.

⁴⁷ Wilson, Christian Dictionary, s.v. [“Loue”], def. 5; Norton, Orthodox Evangelist, 226.

⁴⁸ Shepard, Works, 2. 208; cf. Wilson, Christian Dictionary, s.v. [”Loue”], def. 6, and Norton, Orthodox Evangelist, 226.

⁴⁹ Perkins, Works, 1. 76, 77, 81, 83, 92.

⁵⁰ John Preston, The Onely Love of the Chiefest of Ten Thousand (London, 1640) 6, 7. Cf. Hooker, The Sovles Vocation or Effectval Calling to Christ (London, 1638) 60, and The Soules Implantation (London, 1637) 172; Fenner, Treatise of Affections, 129.

⁵¹ Perkins, Works, 3. 224 (2d pag.).

⁵² Shepard, Works, 2. 537.

⁵³ Ames, “Conscience,” 2. 31; Shepard, Works, 2. 79, 46.

⁵⁴ John Rogers, The Doctrine of Faith (3d ed.; London, 1629) 260; Sibbes, Works, 7. 217 #281; John Cotton, Christ the Fountain of Life (London, 1651) 228.

⁵⁵ Thomas Hooker, The Sovles Exaltation (London, 1638) 305; Sibbes, Works, 7. 187 #24; Hildersam, CVIII Lectures, 96.

⁵⁶ Shepard, Works, 1. 253.

⁵⁷ Bulkeley, Gospel-Covenant, 407.

⁵⁸ Preston, Breast-Plate, 149–50 (3d pag.).

⁵⁹ Perkins, Works., 2. 20–21; Ames, “Conscience,” II.xiii.9–12; John Cotton, Gospel Conversion (London, 1646) 20, and Christ the Fountaine, 237.

⁶⁰ Hooker, Sovles Vocation, 257; The Oxford English Dictionary (13 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University, 1933) [henceforth OED] s.v. “ravish,” def. 3c. The earliest use of this definition was during the fourteenth century. The early English dictionaries do not take note of this meaning, giving only the sense of ‘to rape,’ ‘deflower,’ ‘take away by force’: Robert Cawdrey, A Table Alphabeticall (London, 1604) s.v. “Rauish”; John Minsheu, ‘Ηγεμὼν εἰς τ⋯ς γλ⋯σσας, id est Ductor in linguas. The Gvide Into Tongves (London, 1617) s.v. “Rauish”; Henry Cockeram, The English Dictionary (London, 1623) pt. II s.v. “to Rauish a Maide,” “a Rauishing”; T[homas] Blount, Glossographia (London, 1656) s.v. “Rauishment.”Google Scholar

⁶¹ Downame, Christian Warfare, 1124; Shepard, Works, 3. 375; Perkins, Works, 1. 319. Cf. Sibbes, Works, 5. 397; Cotton, Way of Life, 19; Norton, Orthodox Evangelist, 100. Shepard uses admiration with the now archaic signification of ‘wonder,’ ‘astonishment,’ ‘surprise,’ a sense of marvel stronger than that commonly conveyed by the word's more modern meaning of ‘agreeable surprise.’ OED, s.v. “admiration,” defs. 1, 2; Cawdrey, Table Alphabeticall, s.v. “Admire”; John Bullokar, An English Expositor (London, 1616) s.v. “Admire”; Cockeram, English Dictionarie, I s.v. “Admire”; Minsheu, Gvide Into Tongves, s.v. “Admire”; Edward Phillips, The New World of English Words (London, 1658) s.v. “Admirable”; Blount, Glossographia, s.v. “Admiration.”

⁶² Shepard, Works, 3. 375.

⁶³ Sibbes, Works, 5. 397; Hooker, Application, IX–X, 33; Preston, Remaines, 284. For other statements that the Elect have assurance of love: Shepard, A Short Catechism, Familiarly Teaching the Knowledge of God, and of our Selves (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1654) 20; Downame, Christian Warfare, 1120; Cotton, Christ in the Fountaine, 56–57.

⁶⁴ Downame, Christian Warfare, 1124; Shepard, Works, 2. 335; Hooker, Sovles Vocation, 241.

⁶⁵ Sibbes, Works, 5. 88; cf. Shepard, Works, 2. 84 and Perkins, Works, 3. 580.

⁶⁶ Hooker, Soules Implantation, 174–75.

⁶⁷ Shepard, Works, 2. 335.

⁶⁸ Hooker, The Paterne of Perfection (London, 1640) 110; Perkins, Works, 3. 490; Preston, The New Covenant, or the Saints Portion (8th ed; London, 1634) 379, and see Breast-Plate, 51 (3d pag.).

⁶⁹ Sibbes, Works, 4. 182–88; Preston, Onely Love, 10; Hooker, Soules Implantation, 162.

⁷⁰ Perkins, Works, 1. 274, 319; Shepard, Works, 2. 72. See also Rogers, Treatise of Love, 14.

⁷¹ Hooker, Sovles Vocation, 252; Cotton, Christ the Fountaine, 53; Perkins, Works, 1. 274; Bulkeley, Gospel-Covenant, 406–7.

⁷² Preston, Onely Love, 18, 25; cf. Bulkeley, Gospel-Covenant, 126; Hooker, Paterne of Perfection, 113; Sibbes, Works, 4. 190.

⁷³ Shepard, Works, 1. 277; Sibbes, Works, 4. 194.

⁷⁴ Shepard, Works, 1. 275; cf. Sibbes, Works, 4. 181.

⁷⁵ Perkins, Works, 1. 704; cf. Bulkeley, Gospel-Covenant, 126; Hooker, Paterne of Perfection, 113; Laurence Chaderton, An Excellent and godly Sermon … (London, 1578) D.iiii^v.

⁷⁶ Ezekiel Culverwell, Time Well Spent in Sacred Meditations, Divine Observations, Heavenly Exhortations (London, 1635) 206–7.

⁷⁷ Perkins, Works, 3. 490; Hooker, Sovles Exaltation, 307. In context, Perkins does not think that fallen man can ever love God this completely (cf. Thomas Cartwright, A Treatise of Christian Religion [2d ed.; London, 1616] 163; Rogers, Treatise of Love, 14), and that the highest degree that the Gospel contemplates is “standing in an vnfained will, and true endeauour, to loue God, with all the heart, all the strength, and all the powers.” Hooker, however (and see Sibbes, Works, 4. 190, 195), speaks as if the Elect can fulfill the injunction.

⁷⁸ Sibbes, Works, 4. 194–95. The precise quotation is “with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might” (KJV). This passage is the source for Matt 22:37, and was sometimes confused with it in evaluations of human potency (see Richard Mather, A Farewell Exhortation … [Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1657] 20; Perkins, Works, 1. 32; Hooker, Application, IX–X, 306). In the present case, Sibbes doubles the references to “might,” but there is a basis in the verse for his exaggeration.

⁷⁹ Preston, Onely Love, 151.

⁸⁰ Sibbes, Works, 4. 181; Fenner, Treatise of Affections, 68; Downame, Christian Warfare, 1115.

⁸¹ Preston, Onely Love, 114–15.

⁸² Sibbes, Works, 5. 368.

⁸³ Preston, Breast-Plate, 186 (3d pag.). Shepard, Works, 2. 61. Cf. Perkins, Works, 2. 313; Henry Smith, The Sinners Confession (London, 1594) B3^r, among others; see also Davenport, Saints Anchor-Hold, 40.

⁸⁴ Hooker, Sovles Vocation, 278–79, explicating Rev 3:16; cf. Sibbes, Works, 7. 223 #315.

⁸⁵ Bulkeley, Gospel-Covenant, 397; Ames, “Conscience,” III.vi.1; Chaderton, Excellent and godly Sermon, [D.v]^r.

⁸⁶ Sibbes, Works, 1. 159, 160.

⁸⁷ Wilson, Christian Dictionary, s.v. “Zeale,” def. 1; Perkins, Works, 3. 365; Preston, Breast-Plate, 87–88 (3d pag.). Cf. Pierre de La Primaudaye, The Second Part of the French Academy (London, 1594) 320–24; Edward Reymonds, A Treatise of the Passions and Faculties of the Soule of Man (London, 1640) 106. William Fenner demurred from other opinions. “Bonaventura and other of the Schoole make it onely of love [cf. Wilson, Christian Dictionary, s.v. “Zeale,” def. 7, which refers to the “most earnest loue of God, for ye good of his church and his owne glory,” a specification def. 1 lacks; Chaderton, Excellent and godly Sermon D.iiii.v; also Minsheu, Gvide Into Tongves, s.v. “Zeale”]; Ludovicus Vives makes it to be compounded of two affections, indignation and pitty [no Puritan seems to have held this]. Others to be mixed of anger and love: this is not so; for zeale is a high straine of all the affections.” Alleging Gal 4:18 (“it is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing” [KJV] in his behalf, Fenner took zeal to have a general significance, and, citing Deut 6:5, equated it with the whole might of the soul. “Zeale is, when the heart raises up it's [sic] affections with all it's might on a thing,” Treatise of Affections, 143–44, see also 20. Fenner recognizes a component of anger, the “whetstone to zeal” (68), and, turning to 2 Kgs 10:16, allows that love may be termed zeal “in the Scripture” (157). Most Puritans related zeal to love in one way or another.

⁸⁸ Sibbes, Works, 1. 159.

⁸⁹ Hildersam, CVIII Lectures, 420.

⁹⁰ Wilson, Christian Dictionary, s.v. “Feare,” def. 5; Perkins, Works, 1. 84; Arthur Dent, A Sermon of Repentance (London, 1583) [B6]^v; Ames, “Conscience,” II.ix.6.

⁹¹ Cotton, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace (3d corrected ed.; London, 1671) 76; Fenner, Souls Looking-glasse, 179; Preston, Remaines, 43.

⁹² Bulkeley, Gospel-Covenant, 215; Fenner, Souls Looking-glasse, 179; Sibbes, Works, 7. 226 #328; Preston, Saints Qvalfication, 138; Cotton, Treatise of the Covenant, 76.

⁹³ Preston, New Covenant, 380; Hildersam, CVIII Lectures, 480.

⁹⁴ Some Puritans, like Cotton, questioned how much, if at all, Saints could derive a sense of assurance from the witness of good deeds, prompting sectarians like the Hutchinsonians in Massachusetts to deny external evidence any validity in establishing assurance. By derogating the importance of good works, such a formulation subverted the psychology of labor, leading John Winthrop to observe that Hutchinson's doctrines “tended to slothfulnesse, and [to] quench all indevour in the creature” (Hall, David D., ed., The Antinomian Controversy, 1636–1638: A Documentary History [Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University, 1968] 264).Google Scholar To the extent that they remained orthodox, Puritans stopped short of this conclusion. Cotton himself did not entirely discount good works as evidence of salvation, thereby just preserving the normative position. See Sixteen Questions of Seriovs and Necessary Consequence (London, 1646) 7–12. As long as they did not entirely deny that righteous acts evidenced salvation, Puritans could disagree about how one comes to assurance without challenging their psychology. On the place of assurance in Puritanism, see Stoever, William K. B., ‘A Faire and Easie Way to Heaven’: Covenant Theology and Antinomianism in Early Massachusetts (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University, 1978) 58–60, 70–77, 119–60, 175–78.Google Scholar