What do you think?
Rate this book
The Marrow of Theology
One of history's most influential Christian writings presents the Puritan understanding of God, the church, and the world. Now in modern English.
368 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 1983
40 people are currently reading
238 people want to read
About the author
William Ames
79 books9 followersWilliam Ames (/eɪmz/; Latin: Guilielmus Amesius; 1576 – 14 November 1633) was an English Protestant divine, philosopher, and controversialist. He spent much time in the Netherlands, and is noted for his involvement in the controversy between the Calvinists and the Arminians.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
December 26, 2016
Ames, himself an English Puritan living in the Netherlands, gives us a manual that will become the dominant intellectual book in New England for several centuries (I hope at this moment we can bury the nonsense that Reformed theology is just the 5 Points found in John Calvin).
Ames’ manner of presentation reflects his commitment to Ramist logic, and thus Ames’s writing is remarkably clear and easy to read. We don’t agree with Ames in every point, but this is a very useful manual and will repay careful study.
Key themes
Faith is more than assent, but also designates “an act of the will” (1.2.3-5). For Ames, since faith “must consist of a union with God,” it can’t be mere assent (18).
Ames has an outstanding discussion of God and his essence, particularly of “ideas in God.” He has the standard arguments for God’s decrees, and seems to point towards a gentle supralapsarianism, but its definitely muted compared to Perkins.
Much has been made of Ames’ voluntarism, and he certainly does place the will in a more prominent role than earlier divines, and it certainly “cashes out” in his ethics.
Questions and criticisms
Is it true that “living well is more important than living happily” (1.1.8)? Is Ames breaking from the Aristotelian eudaimion tradition at this point?
Ames argues that the kings are not subject to Christ, but to God (1.19.31). Maybe he means by this that Christ is properly king and head of the church. Fair enough, but Revelation 1.4-5 says that he is also rulers of the kings *on earth.*
While as a good Presbyterian I would have liked to see Ames mention rule by elders and presbyteries, his stuff on church govt is still quite good. I disagree with him on what he left out, not on what he actually said.
Conclusion
This text is a fine snapshot of pre-Westminster Puritanism. More importantly, it would become the standard textbook in New England for almost 200 years. It’s been accused of being a “checklist,” but even so, that adds to his value. Accordingly, Ames is very clear on what he means.
Ames’ manner of presentation reflects his commitment to Ramist logic, and thus Ames’s writing is remarkably clear and easy to read. We don’t agree with Ames in every point, but this is a very useful manual and will repay careful study.
Key themes
Faith is more than assent, but also designates “an act of the will” (1.2.3-5). For Ames, since faith “must consist of a union with God,” it can’t be mere assent (18).
Ames has an outstanding discussion of God and his essence, particularly of “ideas in God.” He has the standard arguments for God’s decrees, and seems to point towards a gentle supralapsarianism, but its definitely muted compared to Perkins.
Much has been made of Ames’ voluntarism, and he certainly does place the will in a more prominent role than earlier divines, and it certainly “cashes out” in his ethics.
Questions and criticisms
Is it true that “living well is more important than living happily” (1.1.8)? Is Ames breaking from the Aristotelian eudaimion tradition at this point?
Ames argues that the kings are not subject to Christ, but to God (1.19.31). Maybe he means by this that Christ is properly king and head of the church. Fair enough, but Revelation 1.4-5 says that he is also rulers of the kings *on earth.*
While as a good Presbyterian I would have liked to see Ames mention rule by elders and presbyteries, his stuff on church govt is still quite good. I disagree with him on what he left out, not on what he actually said.
Conclusion
This text is a fine snapshot of pre-Westminster Puritanism. More importantly, it would become the standard textbook in New England for almost 200 years. It’s been accused of being a “checklist,” but even so, that adds to his value. Accordingly, Ames is very clear on what he means.
November 23, 2022
The theology of this volume is very solid, though I really do not like the Ramist style of writing. He made a very strong argument against the anti-Sabbatarian interpretation of Romans 14, which, if taken to its logical conclusion, would require us to view the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper as not different from ordinary food.
January 31, 2026
William Ames’s (1576–1633) The Marrow of Theology (first published in 1622; the version under review is an English translation of the 1629 edition) is widely recognized as one of the most significant articulations of and contributions to English Reformed and Puritan theology. Ames also serves as a theological bridge between the English Puritans and the Dutch Reformed, as he spent the latter part of his life in Holland (1610–1633). As John Dykstra Eusden, the editor and translator of this volume, summarizes, “despite [his] array of personal misfortune, Ames’s voice was still one of the most influential in the theological development of the Puritan and Reformed churches in England and the Netherlands” (6). The Marrow itself was not written as “a scholarly treatise but as a useful compendium for payment and students” (2). Very importantly, Ames and his Marrow would go on to highly influence the theological thought of the New England Puritans, as can be seen in John Cotton (1584–1652), John Norton (1606–1663), and Cotton Mather (1663–1728). Ames and The Marrow of Theology thus stands as a highly significant theological work in not only the history of Reformed theology, but also in the history of America and Western Christianity.
This review will focus mostly on interesting points in Ames’s The Marrow of Theology that deserve to be highlighted. Critical matters will focus more on Eusden’s introduction rather than Ames and The Marrow.
The sheer quantity of treatment does not always speak to the significance of the subject from the author’s point of view, but it often can. It should be observed then that out of 41 chapters of book one and the 22 chapters of book two, the three longest chapters of the Marrow are found in book three: the chapter on virtue coming in third, the chapter on prayer coming in second, and the chapter on the time of worship coming in first.
Ames strongly argues for a voluntarist and practical conception of theology; “theology is the doctrine or teaching of living to God” (1.1.1).
Ames utilizes a Ramist method that leads to mostly intuitive divisions and logical flow from one doctrinal subject to another. One can helpfully see this flow in the visual diagram in the beginning of the book, a common marker of the Ramist method
For Ames, the affections are not understood as a faculty in its own right, both for God and for man: “the faculties are understanding and will. Faith leans on the one who knows what is needful for us and is also willing to supply it” (1.4.52). God’s affections and emotions, for example, is explicitly understood as either acts of his will or figurative language (1.4.62). The role and understanding of the affections would go under interesting developments in the New England Puritan context, as is seen especially in the theology of Jonathan Edwards.
One of the most difficult sections in the Marrow is his discussion of the attributes of God. As Ames specifically notes in his “Brief Forewarning of the Author concerning His Purpose,” the medium which he has chosen to write in has intrinsic limitations that will lend itself to unclarity. This unclarity is especially felt from 1.4.18–32.
Ames endorses the principle typically associated with Duns Scotus that for God’s decree, that which is first in the order of execution is the last in the order of intention, and vice versa (1.7.51). Ames refers to this principle several times throughout his work.
Conscience for Ames is slightly idiosyncratic when compared to traditional understandings of it. For Ames, conscience “is an intelligent creature’s self-judgment in his subjection to God’s judgment” (1.10.13). Conscience, therefore, is more of an act than it is a faculty or disposition, although one cannot fully separate these things in actuality or in practice.
Chapters 11–17 constitute a very impressive treatment on sin and its various aspects and consequences. Noteworthy is Ames’s sensitivity to what we can label as common grace and how the effects of sin are restrained by God.
Ames’s covenant theology is reflective of his time when the terminology of covenant theology was still developing. For example, the covenant of works and the covenant of grace is often equivocated with the old and new covenant (1.28–29) and the active obedience of Christ is not understood in covenantal terms (1.20.12; 1.22.24), but much of the same content is present as one would understand the central tenets of contemporary covenant theology.
It is often observed that the radical shift in modern theology can be seen in Friedrich Schleiermacher’s placement of the doctrine of Scripture after his treatment of the doctrine of the church in The Christian Faith. Interestingly, Schleiermacher actually has precedence in Ames, who explicitly discusses the doctrine of Scripture after the doctrine of the church. Of course, this does not mean that Ames possessed a theology that centralized the community of faith in the formation of doctrine as Schleiermacher did; rather, Ames’s structure is more due to his Ramist method and practical emphasis. How Ames gets from the church to the word is by means of discussing the ministers of the church, who are either extraordinary (the label Ames uses to denote the inspired prophets, apostles, and authors of Scripture) or ordinary (pastors, elders, who regularly preach the word).
Book two on observance is where much theological and spiritual gold is, as many contemporary systematic theologies do not contain within them similar expositions of virtue and the Decalogue. Noteworthy is Ames’s centralization of virtue theory and its connection to the Decalogue, which is not only seen in his section on virtue, but is seen all throughout book two. Ames also affirms and gives a thorough discussion of the order of love (2.16.13–28), an ethical principle commonly associated with Augustine and Aquinas, but not so much with the Reformed (at least in regards to explicit discussions that use the same vocabulary).
Many more interesting points could be brought out, but for the sake of brevity, we move to a critical evaluation of Eusden’s introduction to Ames and The Marrow.
Eusden provides an overall helpful introduction to the biography of Ames and the doctrinal distinctives of The Marrow, but there are significant points when Eusden either betrays a historical mistake, a methodological bias, or a eisegetical reading of Ames.
First, Eusden (who is writing this in 1968), endorses the now-debunk “central dogma” theory of post-Reformation theologians. He finds Ames and his works unique because they do not make predestination “the warp and woof of theology” while, according to Eusden, “in orthodox Reformed thought , predestination was often the primary consideration in a dogmatic system, other points being deduced from it” (26). Richard A. Muller has thoroughly debunked this claim in his magisterial work on post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. Contrary to Eusden, Ames is actually not that unique amongst the orthodox Reformed for not centralizing predestination as a central, deductive principle.
Second, Eusden contends that Ames emphasizes the commonly perceived Puritan emphasis on spiritual preparation; a person should develop certain habits that predispose him to genuine conversion and the reception of grace (50). Although Eusden cites other works of Ames to support this contention, there is no such emphasis in The Marrow. There is certainly a high emphasis on the inculcation of godly habits and works so as to gain assurance of salvation, but there is no specific discussion of spiritual preparation as Eusden construes it. All the more telling is that when one looks to the indexical entry on spiritual preparation, it seems that every section listing under it is not an explicit mention of spiritual preparation by Ames, but more of an interpretive judgment made by Eusden. Perhaps more charitably, Eusden could be clearer in his explanation of spiritual preparation and the assurance of salvation in Ames.
Third, Eusden construes Ames’s doctrine of Scripture in such a way that downplays his affirmation of biblical inspiration and infallibility. Eusden comments that when Ames discusses the doctrine of Scripture, “the perfect-in-itself theme does not occupy Ames for long — he is not disposed to advance a theory of plenary, detailed inspiration, or a belief that each word of scripture is part of God’s oracle of all time. But it is clear that he feels that God has chosen to reveal himself to Isaiah, Matthew, Job, Paul, and the other writers when they are dealing with the essentials of the life of faith” (62). This construal seems different than Ames’s own words, “only those could set down the rule of faith and conduct in writing in that matter were free from all error because of the direct and infallible direction they had from God…. In all of those things made known by supernatural inspiration, whether matters of right or fact, God inspired not only the subjects to be written about but dictated and suggested the very words in which they should be set forth. But this was done with a subtle tempering so that every writer might use the manner of speaking which most suited his person and condition” (1.34.2, 6). Eusden, it would seem, attempts to make Ames’s doctrine of Scripture slightly more palatable to those who object to the traditional doctrines associated with Reformed and Puritan understandings of the Bible.
In the end, The Marrow of Theology is a theological resource too often neglected in contemporary bibliographies and curricula. The only reason why this volume did not get five stars is because of the faults in Eusden’s introduction, which makes up almost the first 70 pages of the book. In the end, one may not agree with Ames on some of the particulars, but his doctrinal and ethical teachings in The Marrow are worth reading and reading again, especially for the student of Reformed theology.
This review will focus mostly on interesting points in Ames’s The Marrow of Theology that deserve to be highlighted. Critical matters will focus more on Eusden’s introduction rather than Ames and The Marrow.
The sheer quantity of treatment does not always speak to the significance of the subject from the author’s point of view, but it often can. It should be observed then that out of 41 chapters of book one and the 22 chapters of book two, the three longest chapters of the Marrow are found in book three: the chapter on virtue coming in third, the chapter on prayer coming in second, and the chapter on the time of worship coming in first.
Ames strongly argues for a voluntarist and practical conception of theology; “theology is the doctrine or teaching of living to God” (1.1.1).
Ames utilizes a Ramist method that leads to mostly intuitive divisions and logical flow from one doctrinal subject to another. One can helpfully see this flow in the visual diagram in the beginning of the book, a common marker of the Ramist method
For Ames, the affections are not understood as a faculty in its own right, both for God and for man: “the faculties are understanding and will. Faith leans on the one who knows what is needful for us and is also willing to supply it” (1.4.52). God’s affections and emotions, for example, is explicitly understood as either acts of his will or figurative language (1.4.62). The role and understanding of the affections would go under interesting developments in the New England Puritan context, as is seen especially in the theology of Jonathan Edwards.
One of the most difficult sections in the Marrow is his discussion of the attributes of God. As Ames specifically notes in his “Brief Forewarning of the Author concerning His Purpose,” the medium which he has chosen to write in has intrinsic limitations that will lend itself to unclarity. This unclarity is especially felt from 1.4.18–32.
Ames endorses the principle typically associated with Duns Scotus that for God’s decree, that which is first in the order of execution is the last in the order of intention, and vice versa (1.7.51). Ames refers to this principle several times throughout his work.
Conscience for Ames is slightly idiosyncratic when compared to traditional understandings of it. For Ames, conscience “is an intelligent creature’s self-judgment in his subjection to God’s judgment” (1.10.13). Conscience, therefore, is more of an act than it is a faculty or disposition, although one cannot fully separate these things in actuality or in practice.
Chapters 11–17 constitute a very impressive treatment on sin and its various aspects and consequences. Noteworthy is Ames’s sensitivity to what we can label as common grace and how the effects of sin are restrained by God.
Ames’s covenant theology is reflective of his time when the terminology of covenant theology was still developing. For example, the covenant of works and the covenant of grace is often equivocated with the old and new covenant (1.28–29) and the active obedience of Christ is not understood in covenantal terms (1.20.12; 1.22.24), but much of the same content is present as one would understand the central tenets of contemporary covenant theology.
It is often observed that the radical shift in modern theology can be seen in Friedrich Schleiermacher’s placement of the doctrine of Scripture after his treatment of the doctrine of the church in The Christian Faith. Interestingly, Schleiermacher actually has precedence in Ames, who explicitly discusses the doctrine of Scripture after the doctrine of the church. Of course, this does not mean that Ames possessed a theology that centralized the community of faith in the formation of doctrine as Schleiermacher did; rather, Ames’s structure is more due to his Ramist method and practical emphasis. How Ames gets from the church to the word is by means of discussing the ministers of the church, who are either extraordinary (the label Ames uses to denote the inspired prophets, apostles, and authors of Scripture) or ordinary (pastors, elders, who regularly preach the word).
Book two on observance is where much theological and spiritual gold is, as many contemporary systematic theologies do not contain within them similar expositions of virtue and the Decalogue. Noteworthy is Ames’s centralization of virtue theory and its connection to the Decalogue, which is not only seen in his section on virtue, but is seen all throughout book two. Ames also affirms and gives a thorough discussion of the order of love (2.16.13–28), an ethical principle commonly associated with Augustine and Aquinas, but not so much with the Reformed (at least in regards to explicit discussions that use the same vocabulary).
Many more interesting points could be brought out, but for the sake of brevity, we move to a critical evaluation of Eusden’s introduction to Ames and The Marrow.
Eusden provides an overall helpful introduction to the biography of Ames and the doctrinal distinctives of The Marrow, but there are significant points when Eusden either betrays a historical mistake, a methodological bias, or a eisegetical reading of Ames.
First, Eusden (who is writing this in 1968), endorses the now-debunk “central dogma” theory of post-Reformation theologians. He finds Ames and his works unique because they do not make predestination “the warp and woof of theology” while, according to Eusden, “in orthodox Reformed thought , predestination was often the primary consideration in a dogmatic system, other points being deduced from it” (26). Richard A. Muller has thoroughly debunked this claim in his magisterial work on post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. Contrary to Eusden, Ames is actually not that unique amongst the orthodox Reformed for not centralizing predestination as a central, deductive principle.
Second, Eusden contends that Ames emphasizes the commonly perceived Puritan emphasis on spiritual preparation; a person should develop certain habits that predispose him to genuine conversion and the reception of grace (50). Although Eusden cites other works of Ames to support this contention, there is no such emphasis in The Marrow. There is certainly a high emphasis on the inculcation of godly habits and works so as to gain assurance of salvation, but there is no specific discussion of spiritual preparation as Eusden construes it. All the more telling is that when one looks to the indexical entry on spiritual preparation, it seems that every section listing under it is not an explicit mention of spiritual preparation by Ames, but more of an interpretive judgment made by Eusden. Perhaps more charitably, Eusden could be clearer in his explanation of spiritual preparation and the assurance of salvation in Ames.
Third, Eusden construes Ames’s doctrine of Scripture in such a way that downplays his affirmation of biblical inspiration and infallibility. Eusden comments that when Ames discusses the doctrine of Scripture, “the perfect-in-itself theme does not occupy Ames for long — he is not disposed to advance a theory of plenary, detailed inspiration, or a belief that each word of scripture is part of God’s oracle of all time. But it is clear that he feels that God has chosen to reveal himself to Isaiah, Matthew, Job, Paul, and the other writers when they are dealing with the essentials of the life of faith” (62). This construal seems different than Ames’s own words, “only those could set down the rule of faith and conduct in writing in that matter were free from all error because of the direct and infallible direction they had from God…. In all of those things made known by supernatural inspiration, whether matters of right or fact, God inspired not only the subjects to be written about but dictated and suggested the very words in which they should be set forth. But this was done with a subtle tempering so that every writer might use the manner of speaking which most suited his person and condition” (1.34.2, 6). Eusden, it would seem, attempts to make Ames’s doctrine of Scripture slightly more palatable to those who object to the traditional doctrines associated with Reformed and Puritan understandings of the Bible.
In the end, The Marrow of Theology is a theological resource too often neglected in contemporary bibliographies and curricula. The only reason why this volume did not get five stars is because of the faults in Eusden’s introduction, which makes up almost the first 70 pages of the book. In the end, one may not agree with Ames on some of the particulars, but his doctrinal and ethical teachings in The Marrow are worth reading and reading again, especially for the student of Reformed theology.
April 10, 2021
A kind of systematic theology that naturally overflows into devotional life, and loving your neighbor. Read this book my friend.
September 30, 2019
One of my favorite books of systematic theology.
Eusden's 70-page introduction provides a brief biography of Ames, demonstrates his Augustinian and scholastic roots, describes his debt to the 16th-century logician Peter Ramus, gives a nice overview of Ames's teaching on each major doctrinal locus, and closes with a helpful visual flow-chart of the Marrow.
The Marrow itself is basically 240 pages of one- to five-sentence summaries of Ames's positions on most major doctrinal questions, with Scriptural proof-texts incorporated into the text. Here's an example, from Section XVIII of Book I, on "The Person of Christ, the Mediator":
27. There were in Christ two kinds of understanding: a divine understanding whereby he knew all things, John 21:17, and a human, whereby he did not yet know some things, Mark 13:32. So there were two wills, one divine, Luke 5:13, and the other human, with a natural appetite, Matt. 26:39. So Christ has a double presence, but the human presence cannot be everywhere or in many places at once.
The brevity of Ames's statements, and their occasional pith, are a large part of what make this book valuable. You don't have to wade through mountains of material to identify his conclusions; i.e., he doesn't qualify his claims a thousand times, which makes his provocations keener and also somehow more pastoral/homiletical. Add to this that the Marrow held greater sway in New England than any other theological textbook up until 1800, and that it presents a helpful snapshot of pre-Westminster Puritanism, and you have a book worth your time.
Eusden's 70-page introduction provides a brief biography of Ames, demonstrates his Augustinian and scholastic roots, describes his debt to the 16th-century logician Peter Ramus, gives a nice overview of Ames's teaching on each major doctrinal locus, and closes with a helpful visual flow-chart of the Marrow.
The Marrow itself is basically 240 pages of one- to five-sentence summaries of Ames's positions on most major doctrinal questions, with Scriptural proof-texts incorporated into the text. Here's an example, from Section XVIII of Book I, on "The Person of Christ, the Mediator":
27. There were in Christ two kinds of understanding: a divine understanding whereby he knew all things, John 21:17, and a human, whereby he did not yet know some things, Mark 13:32. So there were two wills, one divine, Luke 5:13, and the other human, with a natural appetite, Matt. 26:39. So Christ has a double presence, but the human presence cannot be everywhere or in many places at once.
The brevity of Ames's statements, and their occasional pith, are a large part of what make this book valuable. You don't have to wade through mountains of material to identify his conclusions; i.e., he doesn't qualify his claims a thousand times, which makes his provocations keener and also somehow more pastoral/homiletical. Add to this that the Marrow held greater sway in New England than any other theological textbook up until 1800, and that it presents a helpful snapshot of pre-Westminster Puritanism, and you have a book worth your time.
March 8, 2024
This book is as excellent as it has been influential in the history of Reformed theology.
April 30, 2018
Ams doesn't write over anyone's head. He simply writes in such a way that his logic is almost indisputable. But "getting there" involves a lot of suppositions and sequential logic and even Ams freely admits that some of what he is saying is quite beyond human comprehension, including his own. It's a fascinating read for the very serious minded.
April 5, 2021
Theology handbook written in the 17th century. Ames emphasized the lived-out aspects of faith and Christianity. Very succinct and well-organized. He was a Puritan and Calvinist, but his Calvinism is comforting and pastoral.
Read
November 16, 2019The Marrow of Theology is not currently available at local libraries.
March 28, 2025
Excellent.
February 19, 2014
A wonderfully concise treatise of Puritan reformed theology. Unlike most books of systematic theology, Ames does not waste words or go on for hundreds of pages. Rather he divides theology into the simple internal and external aspects, namely, faith and practice. Then he gives you the core skeleton of a Biblical theology from these two aspects.
Ames proceeds by clear, concise steps that everyone can recognize and follow with multiple scriptural references. The Marrow of Theology will not give you all the answers, but it provides a powerful push towards your own deeper study of Christian theology and your own faith.
Ames proceeds by clear, concise steps that everyone can recognize and follow with multiple scriptural references. The Marrow of Theology will not give you all the answers, but it provides a powerful push towards your own deeper study of Christian theology and your own faith.
July 27, 2012
I enjoyed this book thoroughly. Ames is relatively easy to read, a trait uncommon to many prominent authors of his day. He rarely makes a point without appeal to several passages of Scripture. You may not always agree with his conclusions, but you are never going to feel that he is freewheeling.
September 8, 2016
Excellent sum to Christian theology! Ames was a disciple of the great William Perkins, therefore much of his doctrine is very similar to that of Perkins. A must read for anyone interested in theology!
Read
April 9, 2020Solid and very good.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews