Perichoresis 14.3 (2016)

CONTENTS Directions in the Study of Early Modern Reformed Thought RICHARD A. MULLER 3 Reformed Confessions and Scholasticism. Diversity and Harmony ANDREAS J. BECK 17 Reformed Orthodoxy in Puritanism RANDALL J. PEDERSON 45 Reformed Orthodoxy on Imputation. Active and Passive Justification JOHN V. FESKO 61 The Image of God in Reformed Orthodoxy. Soundings in the Development of an Anthropological Key Concept GIJSBERT VAN DEN BRINK, AZA GOUDRIAAN 81 The Relevance of Reformed Scholasticism for Contemporary Systematic Theology DOLF TE VELDE 97 © EMANUEL UNIVERSITY of ORADEA PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Perichoresis Volume 14. Issue 3 (2016): 3-16 DOI: 10.1515/perc-2016-0013 DIRECTIONS IN THE STUDY OF EARLY MODERN REFORMED THOUGHT RICHARD A. MULLER* Calvin Theological Seminary ABSTRACT. Given both the advances in understanding of early modern Reformed theology made in the last thirty years, the massive multiplication of available sources, the significant literature that has appeared in collateral fields, there is a series of highly promising directions for further study. These include archival research into the life, work, and interrelationships of various thinkers, contextual examination of larger numbers of thinkers, study of academic faculties, the interrelationships between theology, philosophy, science, and law, and the interactions positive as well as negative between different confessionalities. KEY WORDS: Reformed orthodoxy, post-Reformation Reformed thought, early modernity, exegesis, philosophy Recent Advances in Research The study of early modern Reformed thought has altered dramatically in the last several decades. The once dominant picture of Calvin as the prime mover of the Reformed tradition and sole index to its theological integrity has largely disappeared from view, as has the coordinate view of ‘Calvinism’ as a monolithic theology and the worry over whether later Reformed thought remained ‘true’ to Calvin. The relatively neglected field of seventeenth-century Reformed thought has expanded and developed both in the number of diverse thinkers examined and in the variety of approaches to the materials. (Given the number of recent published studies of early modern Reformed thought, the following essay makes no attempt to offer a full bibliography, but only to provide examples of various types of research. Readers are invited to explore the excellent bibliographies found in many of the recent works cited here.) There are several explanations for the development of this field. The positive study of late medieval backgrounds by scholars of the Reformation has altered assumptions about the nature and character of Protestant thought. * RICHARD A. MULLER (PhD 1976, Duke University) is P. J. Zondervan professor emeritus of historical theology at Calvin Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, United States of America. Email: mullri@calvinseminary.edu. © EMANUEL UNIVERSITY of ORADEA PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 4 RICHARD A. MULLER Revisionist work on the nature and character of scholasticism and humanism and of the early modern humanist-scholastic debate and interaction has changed the way that scholarship approaches both Reformation and postReformation Protestant thought. Predecessors and contemporaries of Calvin, like Zwingli, Bucer, Bullinger, Vermigli, and Musculus, have received significant examination, as have patterns of Calvin’s reliance on and relation to them. Given what can be called the demotion of Calvin from the place of founder and norm for the whole Reformed tradition, studies of later sixteenth-century and seventeenth-century Reformed writers have examined their thought in its own right as representing forms of contextually located theology or, indeed, theologies. Social and institutional histories of early modernity have provided a clearer sense of the contexts for theological formulation. And scholarship on early modern Protestant receptions of the older tradition, whether patristic or medieval, has shed new light on theological formulation itself. Beyond these points, the examination of Reformation and post-Reformation Protestant thought as intellectual history has led to the correlation of theological studies with a wider range of primary and secondary sources concerning the impact of the Renaissance, the long history of scholasticism rightly understood as primarily a matter of method, and the complexity of philosophy in the early modern era. Multiplication of Resources These patterns of examination of early modern Reformed materials have been supported by a vast proliferation of resources. Forty years ago many of the early modern writers whose names are now commonplace to researchers had been scarcely heard of—and when heard of, their writings were incredibly difficult to examine en masse, given their dispersion in rare book libraries across Europe and America. The older secondary literature, largely nineteenth-century European, was not fully bibilographized and, similarly, was often quite difficult to piece together given its dispersion into many geographically disparate libraries. Unpublished manuscript materials were even more difficult to identify and the usual method of access involved extended international travel. That situation, largely because of on-line catalogues and digitization projects, has largely disappeared. Scholars now can not only find out about the literature, they can also do major preliminary work on-line, locate major archival sources, identify a massive number of previously either unknown or inaccessible primary printed materials, and easily gather a vast array of relevant secondary materials. Some specification concerning specific lines of research is in order. First some further comment on the accessibility of sources and digital research. In addition to well-known older on-line projects like Early English Books Online (EEBO) and Eighteenth-Century Collections Online (ECCO), covering books PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Directions in the Study of Early Modern Reformed Thought 5 printed in Britain or anywhere in English from the beginnings of printing to 1800, there are now major digitization projects that are opening up rare book libraries throughout Europe and North America, such as the Herzog August Bibliothek in Wolffenbüttel, the Bibliotheque Nationale de France, the Bayrisches Staatsbibliothek, and Google Books. The contents of these and other digitization projects are surveyed and listed in the online database of the Junius Institute, the Post-Reformation Digital Library (PRDL.org), which is searchable by author, title key word, academic institutional and confessional affiliations, as well as by an increasing number of topical identifications. Most libraries now have well-designed online catalogues, searchable internationally via LibWeb at <http://www.lib-web.org/>. Some of these libraries are also beginning to offer online catalogues of their manuscript archives and even to digitize manuscripts. Two such significant projects are the Oxford University ‘Early Modern Letters Online’ and ‘Early Manuscripts at Oxford University’. Whereas several decades ago, only the printed works and correspondence of major Reformers like Zwingli, Melanchthon, and Calvin were readily accessible, giving the impression or permitting the excuse that other thinkers need not be investigated, now there is a vast resource not only to their lessfamous contemporaries but also to the late sixteenth- and seventeenth-century materials. The entire framework of research has changed, if only by massively multiplying documentation of individuals and institutions. Personal and Institutional Networks Among the several promising newer directions in scholarship on early modern Reformed thought is the identification and analysis of backgrounds, personal networks, institutional associations, and ecclesial or political contexts. By personal networks and institutional associations I mean the interrelationships of individuals that are not always obvious in printed books but that become clear in the examination of various kinds of archival materials, such as letters, academic registers, city and parish records, and so forth. Increasing access to such materials enables access to more proximate understandings of intentions and acts, often to ongoing dialogues that reveal the backgrounds to and sub-histories of major ecclesial and political events, not to mention publications. Correspondence in particular can reveal issues of chronological development and interactions not otherwise registered, as illustrated in the case of reaction to the thought of John Cameron that ultimately led to the controversies surrounding the theology of Saumur (Gootjes forthcoming). Another significant example is the network of correspondence concerning Protestant inter-confessional irenicism and union, advances in science and education, and a host of related philosophical currents, that is associated with PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 6 RICHARD A. MULLER the efforts of Samuel Hartlib, now gathered online in ‘The Hartlib Papers’ at <http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/hartlib/context>. Another such direction that can be developed in detail arises by means of the enormous number of available academic disputations, whether disputations conducted as part of the work associated with courses given by particular professors or the disputations conducted for the degree. At least in Reformed circles, these disputations, also identified as theses or aphorisms, can be regarded with confidence as reflecting the views, in brief thetical form, of the presiding professor (Stanglin 2010). Study of disputations enables several lines of research. As often gathered for publication in a professor’s Opera, they provide an outline or synopsis of his thought on a wide variety of topics and in some cases reveal a process of development leading from short theses to later, elaborated bodies of doctrine. Given that the disputations were public exercises, they also serve to identify a public or institutional theology of a particular university or academy and, together with research on the backgrounds and later work of the student respondents, can begin to illuminate trajectories of thought and influence (Appold 2004; Rester 2016). Given that we now have an increasing mass of these academic disputations together with the published works of the presiding professors and their colleagues, as collated by academic institution in the ‘Scholastica’ function of PRDL, further work can be done to examine not only lines of argument and debate associated with individual theologians, but also with faculties of theology and philosophy. Coupled with other identifiers of location—cities, parishes, episcopal sees (among the British)—work can be done on the distinctive characteristics of Reformed thought in particular national and local contexts. The disputations also raise the issue of academic developments leading from the Reformation into what can loosely be called the early orthodox era. With the rise of Reformed academic centers, disputation both as an intellectual exercise and as training toward degrees was a regular practice (De Boer 2012), leading to more formal theological argumentation than found in the manuals of doctrine produced by the reformers of the first and second generations. More study of developing academic practice is in order as is further analysis of the increasing efforts of Reformed thinkers to appropriate the work of the fathers and medievals for Protestant theology, particularly as these developments contributed to the rise of scholastic orthodoxy in such writers as Zacharias Ursinus, Lambert Daneau (Fatio 1976), Girolamo Zanchi, Benedictus Aretius, and somewhat later, Johannes Scharpius, William Perkins, Bartholomäus Keckermann, Abraham Scultetus, and others of their generation. This too is the era of political and social confessionalization, the impact of which on theological formulation, particularly in academic contexts deserves further study. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Directions in the Study of Early Modern Reformed Thought 7 Religious and political solidification of confessional lines led also to increasingly detailed polemic and also to increasingly detailed interaction with the writings of opponents. The older scholarship did recognize the importance of polemic, notably with Cardinal Bellarmine and Gilbertus Genebrardus, for the development of Reformed orthodoxy. The same can be said for debate with Lutheran theologians. Further study along these lines can examine both negative and positive interactions and also the relationship between the polemics and the intention on the part of Reformed writers to emphasize the catholicity of the Reformed faith, identify Protestantism as the ‘true church’, and, accordingly, to appropriate what they regarded as the best of the church’s tradition for Protestantism (Milton 1995). From the mid seventeenth century, the case of Claude Pajon exemplifies several directions of the new research, among them the importance of archival work, institutional location, and national ecclesial context. Given that all of Pajon’s major works were circulated in manuscript form, examination and collation of the manuscripts and careful contextual analysis reveals much not only about Pajon’s own thought but also about the nature of French Reformed controversy and also about the several trajectories of thought that emanated from the Academy of Saumur (Gootjes 2014). Further research not only on Saumur but also on the other French Reformed academies, their development, interactions, controversies, and impact of their graduates will be a significant field of inquiry. The research will need to continue the lines of archival research and examine the interrelationship of thinkers and institutions, often via their correspondence. The same should be noted of the Reformed academies and universities of central Europe, ranging from Bremen, to Herborn and Heidelberg, Basel and Zurich, to Danzig and Alba Iulia in Transylvania. Significant work has been done, for example, on the thought and academic perigrination of Johann Heinrich Alsted and on the impact of Ramism in the German academies (Hotson 2000, 2007), on the thought of Thomas Erastus at Heidelberg (Gunnoe 2011), and on academic and ministerial formation in Geneva and Basel (Maag 1995; Burnett 2006). Expanded availability of sources should lead to more such studies tracing institutional developments through several generations of faculty, identifying contexts and influences in British universities and French academies as well. There has been, moreover, a significant expansion of interest in the history of universities that provides collateral research, often clarifying developments in theological faculties (Freedman 1994, 2005; Feingold and Navarro-Brotons 2006). Biographical and Topical Studies There is also a series of types of more topical and contextualized biographical research that, again, when continued contextually, will bear further fruit. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 8 RICHARD A. MULLER The intricacies of covenant theology remain to be worked out beyond the recent analysis of Cocceius’ life and significant recasting of his thought and analysis of Cocceius’ life by Van Asselt (Van Asselt 1997, 2001). In particular, the study of post-Cocceian controversy developments in covenantal thought, examining such figures as Burman, Van der Wayen, Witsius, and Vitringa is a desideratum. In the case of Witsius, recent work has been done that has highlighted his international connection in the antinomian debates of the late seventeenth century (Van den Brink 2008, 2016). More work needs to be done here on the regional and international developments of thought, the connections between biblical exegesis, legal and political issues and language, and theological formulation, as well as the eschatological dimensions of covenantal thought (Van Asselt, 1996, 2000). Cocceius is not the only major theological thinker of the era who has been contextually studied. Noteworthy here are studies of Gisbertus Voetius’ doctrine of God (Beck 2007), James Ussher’s soteriology (Snoddy 2014) and the carefully contextualized studies of Samuel Rutherford (Coffey 1997), John Goodwin (Coffey 2006), John Owen (Gribben 2016), Richard Baxter (Burton 2012; Sytsma forthcoming), and Louis Tronchin (Fatio 2015). Needless to say, more needs to be done biographically, offering contextualized intellectual history studies of more of the significant writers and thinkers of the era. In many cases, such as Voetius, Francis Spanheim, Andreas Rivetus, Francis Turretin, and Jean-Alphonse Turretin, the last major biographical studies were written in the nineteenth century. And beyond these better-known thinkers, there needs to be further identification and study of the less-known writers in order to achieve a clearer picture of the development, breadth, and complexity of Reformed thought. In the area of topical study, there have been several significant works on the theological controversies of the era that underline the stresses and strains placed on traditional theology by exegetical and philosophical change—specifically in debates over the doctrine of the Trinity (Lim 2012) and the challenge of Socinianism (Mortimer 2010). Other studies have emphasized the presence of varied lines of thought and the diversity of the Reformed tradition (Moore 2007; Haykin and Jones 2011), the former examining seventeenth-century the development of English hypothetical universalism, the latter including a series of essay on topics of debate such as the obedience of Christ, lapsarian issues, hypothetical universalism, eccelesiology, and eschatology. Further study along all of these lines is called for—particularly with a view to uncovering further the diversity of the tradition and the nature of its debates, both theological and philosophical, namely, the debates that evidence varied streams of thought, some of which are in common with other confessionalities but others of which belong to the Reformed tradition itself, PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Directions in the Study of Early Modern Reformed Thought 9 sometimes identifying confessional boundaries, but other times simply identifying the diversity of Reformed thought. There is also a significant development in understanding English or British Reformed thought, ranging from major reassessments of the work of Richard Hooker (Atkinson 1997; Kirby 2000) as belonging firmly within a Reformed model, to studies of the persistence of Reformed or ‘Calvinistic’ thought in the Anglican church after the Restoration (Hampton 2007; Wallace 2011). In furthering this line of research the breadth of the Reformed tradition must continue to be noted as well as the highly problematic use of a notion of ‘Calvinism’ as a marker for what is Reformed (Muller 2012, 5169; Van den Brink and Höpfl 2014, 8-10). In the case of British thought, there is not only the presence of several major confessional documents belonging to the Reformed family (the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Lambeth Articles, Irish Articles, and the Westminster Confession of Faith), there is also the matter of the varied sources and thinkers who contributed to British Reformed thought, including its Puritan varieties (Pederson 2015), very few of whom can be simply identified as followers of Calvin. Interactions with Philosophy and the Sciences The intersections of theological thought with other thought forms also represent some of the most fruitful possibilities for further research. There are two areas here, also profoundly interrelated that require notice. First and perhaps most obvious, philosophy. The older scholarship recognized the connection between Reformed orthodox theology and the modified Aristotelian or Peripatetic tradition. Beyond, however, a rather a-historical antipathy to all things Aristotelian, the older scholarship typically did not recognize the modifications that took place in the Peripatetic tradition during the later Middle Ages and the Renaissance, not to mention the early modern era. Several recent works have looked in more detail at medieval backgrounds to Reformed orthodoxy identifying possible Scotist backgrounds (Beck 2007; Burton 2012) while others, in some continuity with a line of older scholarship, have identified Thomistic lines of argumentation (Rehnman 2002; Cleveland 2013). This is a line of inquiry that needs to be extended and nuanced further, both in view of the character of ongoing scholastic conversation and debate in the early modern era that yielded what is arguably an eclectic reception among the Reformed and in view of the reception by the Reformed, around and after the time of the Synod of Dort, of recent Roman Catholic thought as is often identified as the ‘second scholasticism’. Recent scholarship has evidenced both a more nuanced understanding of early modern Aristotelianism as well as a sense of the receptions, rejections, and adaptations of the new philosophies on part of Reformed thinkers (Verbeek 1992; Van Ruler 1995; Goudriaan 2006; Bac 2010). There is more to PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 10 RICHARD A. MULLER be done on this topic, including further studies of Reformed-Cartesian interactions, of the impact of Gassendi’s Christianized Epicureanism and the mechanical philosophies (Sytsma forthcoming), and of the implications for early modern theology of the replacement of modified Aristotelianism with other philosophical models, a process largely complete in the early eighteenth century. Second, a specific line of research on the intersection of theological and philosophical thought concerns the rise of early modern science (Mandelbrote and Van der Meer 2008) and its impact on biblical interpretation and theological formulation. We ought to move past the point of focusing on the impact of the shift from a geocentric to a heliocentric view of the solar system and the employment of a few inconclusive prooftexts to uphold geocentrism: on this point, although the Copernican model remained a point of contention for some, many theologians adapted quite easily once improved instrumentation and Newtonian science offered a suitable explanation of the heliocentric model. Arguably, of far greater and lasting impact was the loss of the traditional approaches to substance and causality, brought about by Cartesian and Gassendian thought, the new mechanical philosophies in general, and eventually Spinoza, Locke, and Newton (Van Ruler 1991, 1995). The effects of this alteration of thought and language on Reformed theology in the eighteenth century requires further research. Similarly, there is a need to trace out interactions between theology and science in the highly varied works on socalled ‘Mosaic Philosophy’ or ‘Mosaic Physics’ written between the late sixteenth and mid-eighteenth century (Blair 2000; Leinonen 2002; Sytsma 2015). Another significant intersection of theology with another discipline that is bearing fruit in recent research is that between theology and law. Much twentieth-century theological scholarship attempted to sever the ties between Reformed thought and the natural law tradition despite several now classic essays indicating quite the opposite (McNeill 1946; Eusden 1960; Gibbs 1971). Recent scholarship has not only demonstrated that this minority report among the older scholarship was on the right track, it has shown the direct relationship between Reformed thought on natural law and the older natural law tradition and the importance of the Reformed contribution to natural law theory in the early modern era (Grabill 2006; Witte 2007, 2009; Burton 2014) and it has demonstrated the confessional location and theological connection of jurists in Reformed circles (Goudriaan 2011), and demonstrating common ground with Lutheran jurisprudence and significant differences with Roman Catholic (Strohm 2008). Of these studies, one also illustrates the importance of archival work to identify major unpublished materials as well as demonstrating the importance of personal connections, given the close epistolary PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Directions in the Study of Early Modern Reformed Thought 11 relationship of its author, the jurist Matthew Hale, and the theologian, Richard Baxter (Hale 2015). There has also been a reassessment of textual criticism and biblical interpretation in the early modern era (Van Rooden 1989; Austin 2007; Burnett 2012) and there have been exegetical studies that extend the reassessment of pre-critical exegesis into the seventeenth century (Lee 2009). There is a series of issues that ought to be further explored. Most directly, there is the issue of the varied nature and character of pre-critical exegesis in its own right—specifically its understanding of the literal sense of the text as illustrated in the work of exegetes, its relation to, rejection and retention of patterns of medieval exegesis, its development of text-critical approaches, and its varied forms, notably, critical annotation, theological annotation, large-scale textual and theological commentaries, homiletical commentaries, and various combinations of these genres. Beyond this there is the issue of changing patterns of biblical interpretation in relation to the philosophical and scientific developments of the era—and, further, the relation of all of these genres of interpretation and patterns of exposition to theological formulation. Looking past the late seventeenth century, more work needs to be done on the dramatic alteration of biblical interpretation that came in the wake of Richard Simon’s critical analyses of the Old and New Testaments (Champion 1999)—as well as the impact of Spinoza’s and Meyer’s contributions to the alteration of the understanding of Scripture (Verbeek 2000; Meijer 2005). Work has been done on the academic, critical study of the text in the eighteenth century (Legaspi 2010), but more is needed before we can have a sense of the impact of altered patterns of exegesis on theological formation—or, indeed, on the level of impact of the altered patterns and of the levels to which they were either resisted or ignored. Finally, the question of the transition from the era of orthodoxy to the Enlightenment remains one of the topics in greatest need of investigation. The question can be addressed institutionally and as a philosophical transition (Heyd 1982; Pitassi 1992). It can also be addressed in terms of the decline of strict confessionality and the early latitudinarian theologies. These theologies tended to hold to a broadly conceived churchly orthodoxy that dispensed with disputes over predestination and advocated traditional trinitarianism while at the same time adjusting to the new philosophies and drawing positively on developments in science (Spellman 1993). Patterns of deconfessionalization and transitional or latitudinarian theology in Geneva have been analyzed (Klauber 1994; Fatio 2015), the study of the history of ‘religious enlightenment’ in Scotland has seen several significant developments, including an analysis of the impact of the issue of moralism on orthodoxy and Moderatism (Ahnert 2014), and the broader patterns of the ‘Religious Enlighten- PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 12 RICHARD A. MULLER ment’ throughout Europe have been surveyed (Sorkin 2009)—pointing toward a variety of religious, theological, and philosophical approaches more intellectually and regionally diverse than have been argued in recent scholarship on Spinozism (Israel 2001). The social and political contexts of deconfessionalization in varies locations require further study, including the impact of these contexts on religious practice and theological formulation. Conclusion In sum, the directions for research on the subject of early modern Reformed thought must begin with further effort to identify and analyze developments in theology with reference to immediate institutional philosophical, political, and socio-cultural contexts, carried on with more detailed approaches to individual thinkers and their interrelationships. Use of expanded digital resources, whether printed texts, manuscripts, or catalogues is imperative, as is archival research. There needs also to be increasing interdisciplinary dialogue given not only the importance of such fields as the histories of philosophy, science, and law to an understanding of the era, but also given the multiple competencies of the early modern writers and the breadth of interactions among the disciplines in the early modern era. And finally, there needs to be further work on the rise and decline of orthodoxy—namely on aspects of the orthodoxy that arose over the course of several generations and on the alterations that took place in the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to bring about not the end but the marginalization of orthodoxy. Bibliography Ahnert T (2014) The Moral Culture of the Scottish Enlightenment, 1690-1805. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Appold KG (2004) Orthodoxie als Konsensbildung. Das theologische Disputationswesen an der Universität Wittenberg zwischen 1570 und 1710. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Atkinson N (1997) Richard Hooker and the Authority of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason: Reformed Theologian of the Church of England? Carlisle: Paternoster. Austin K (2007) From Judaism to Calvinism. The Life and Writings of Immanuel Tremellius (c. 1510-1580). Burlington: Ashgate. Bac JM (2010) Perfect Will Theology: Divine Agency in Reformed Scholasticism as against Suárez, Episcopius, Descartes, and Spinoza. Leiden: Brill. Beck A (2007) Gisbertus Voetius (1589-1676). Sein Theologieverständnis und seine Gotteslehre. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Blair A (2000) Mosaic Physics and the Search for a Pious Natural Philosophy in the Late Renaissance. Isis 91(1): 32-58. Burnett AN (2006) Teaching the Reformation: Ministers and Their Message, 15291629. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Directions in the Study of Early Modern Reformed Thought 13 Burnett S (2012) Christian Hebraism in the Reformation Era (1500-1660): Authors, Books, and the Transmission of Jewish Learning. Leiden: Brill. Burton SJG (2012) The Hallowing of Logic: The Trinitarian Method of Richard Baxter’s Methodus Theologiae. Leiden: Brill. Burton SJG (2014) Samuel Rutherford’s Euthyphro Dilemma: A Reformed Perspective on the Scholastic Natural Law Tradition. In Denlinger A (ed) Reformed Orthodoxy in Scotland Edinburgh: T&T Clark, pp. 123-139. Champion JAI (1999) Père Richard Simon and English Biblical Criticism, 1680-1700. In Force JE et al. (eds) Everything Connects. In Conference with Richard H. Popkin: Essays in his Honor. Leiden: Brill, pp. 39-61. Cleveland C (2013) Thomism in John Owen. Burlington: Ashgate. Coffey J (1997) Politics, Religion, and the British Revolutions. The Mind of Samuel Rutherford. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coffey J (2006) John Goodwin and the Puritan Revolution: Religion and Intellectual Change in Seventeenth-Century England. Woodbridge: Boydell Press. De Boer E (2012) The Genevan School of the Prophets: The Congrégations of the Company of Pastors and their Influence in 16th Century Europe. Genève: Droz. Eusden JD (1958) Natural Law and Covenant Theology in New England, 1620-1670. Natural Law Forum 5(n.i.): 1-30. Fatio O (1976) Méthode et théologie: Lambert Daneau et les débuts de la scolastique reformée. Genève: Droz. Fatio O (2015) Louis Tronchin: une transition calvinienne. Paris: Garnier, 2015. Feingold M and Navarro-Brotons V (2006) Universities and Science in the Early Modern Period. Dordrecht: Springer. Freedman J (1994) Classifications of Philosophy, the Sciences, and the Arts in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Europe. The Modern Schoolman 72(n.i.): 37-65. Freedman JS (2005) Disputations in Europe in the Early Modern Period. In Freedman JS (eds) Hora Est! On Dissertations. Leiden: Leiden University Library, pp. 30-50. Gibbs LW (1971) Puritan Natural Law Theory in William Ames. Harvard Theological Review 64(1): 37-57. Gootjes A (2014) Claude Pajon (1626-1685) and the Academy of Saumur. The First Controversy Over Grace. Leiden: Brill. Gootjes A (forthcoming) The Theologian’s Private Cabinet: The Development and Early Reception of John Cameron’s Universalism. In Van der Pol F (ed) The Doctrine of Election in Reformed Perspective. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Goudriaan A (2006) Reformed Orthodoxy and Philosophy, 1625-1750. Gisbertus Voetius, Petrus van Mastricht, and Anthonius Driessen. Leiden: Brill. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 14 RICHARD A. MULLER Goudriaan A (2011) Ulrik Huber (1636-1694) and John Calvin. The Franeker Debate on Human Reason and the Bible (1686-1687). Church History and Religious Culture 91(1):165-178. Grabill SJ (2006) Rediscovering the Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Gribben C (2014) The Irish Puritans. James Ussher and the Reformation of the Church. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. Gribben C (2016) John Owen and English Puritanism. Experiences of Defeat. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gunnoe C (2011) Thomas Erastus and the Palatinate. A Renaissance Physician in the Second Reformation. Leiden: Brill. Hale M (2015) Of the Law of Nature [edited, with an introduction by David S. Sytsma]. Grand Rapids: CLP Academic. Hampton S (2007) Anti-Arminians. The Anglican Reformed Tradition from Charles II to George I. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haykin MAG and Jones M, eds (2011) Drawn into Controversie. Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Heyd M (1982) Between Orthodoxy and the Enlightenment. Jean-Robert Chouet and the Introduction of Cartesian Science in the Academy of Geneva. Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff. Hotson H (2000) Johann Heinrich Alsted, 1588-1638. Between Renaissance, Reformation, and Universal Reform. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hotson H (2007) Commonplace Learning. Ramism and its German Ramifications, 1543-1630. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Israel JI (2001) Radical Enlightenment. Philosophy and the Making of Modernity, 1650-1750. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kirby WJT (2000) The Theology of Richard Hooker in the Context of the Magisterial Reformation. Princeton: Princeton Theological Seminary. Klauber MI (1994) Between Reformed Scholasticism and Pan-Protestantism. JeanAlphonse Turretin (1671-1737) and Enlightened Orthodoxy at the Academy of Geneva. Selinsgrove: Susquehanna University Press. Lee BJ (2009) Johannes Cocceius and the Exegetical roots of Federal Theology. Reformation Developments in the Interpretation of Hebrews 7-10. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Legaspi MC (2010) The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Leinonen M (2002) De Physica Mosaica Comeniana. The Academic Thesis of Anders Lundbom. Acta Comeniana 15-16(39-40): 107-125. Lim PC (2012) Mystery Unveiled. The Crisis of the Trinity in Early Modern England. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Directions in the Study of Early Modern Reformed Thought 15 Maag K (1995) Seminary or University? The Genevan Academy and Reformed Higher Education, 1560-1620. Aldershot: Scolar. Mandelbrote S and Van der Meer J, eds (2008) Nature and Scripture in the Abrahamic Religions: 1700-Present, volumes 1-2. Leiden: Brill. McNeill JT (1946) Natural Law in the Teaching of the Reformers. Journal of Religion 26(3): 168-182. Meijer L (2005) Philosophy as the Interpreter of Holy Scripture (1666) [translated by Samuel Shirley, with an introduction and notes by Lee C. Rice and Francis Pastijn]. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press. Milton A (1995) Catholic and Reformed. The Roman and Protestant Churches in English Protestant Thought, 1600-1640. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moore JD (2007) English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Mortimer S (2010) Reason and Religion in the English Revolution. The Challenge of Socinianism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Muller R (2012) Calvin and the Reformed Tradition. On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker. Pederson R (2014) Unity in Diversity. English Puritans and the Puritan Reformation, 1603-1689. Leiden: Brill. Pitassi MC (1992) De l’Orthodoxie aux Lumières. Genève 1670-1737. Genève: Labor et Fides. Rehnman S (2002) Divine Discourse. The Theological Methodology of John Owen. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. Rester TM (2016) Theologia Viatorum. Institutional Continuity, Theological Pedagogy, and the Reception of a Prolegomenal Framework in Bernhardinus De Moor’s ‘Commentarius Perpetuus’. PhD Thesis, Calvin Theological Seminary. Snoddy R (2014) The Soteriology of James Ussher. The Act and Object of Saving Faith. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sorkin David (2009) The Religious Enlightenment. Protestants, Jews, and Catholics from London to Vienna. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Spellman WM (1993) The Latitudinarians and the Church of England, 1660-1700. Athens, GA, and London: University of Georgia Press. Stanglin K (2010) The Missing Public Disputations of Jacobus Arminius. Introduction, Text, and Notes. Leiden: Brill. Strohm C (2008) Calvinismus und Recht. Weltanschaulich-konfessionelle Aspekte im Werk reformierter Juristen in der Frühen Neuzeit. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Sytsma D (2015) Calvin, Daneau, and Physica Mosaica. Neglected Continuities at the Origins of an Early Modern Tradition. Church History and Religious Culture 95(4): 457-476. Sytsma D (forthcoming) Richard Baxter and the Mechanical Philosophers. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 16 RICHARD A. MULLER Van Asselt WJ (1996) Ultimum Tempus Nobis Imminet. Eschatologische Structuren van de Theologie van Johannes Cocceius. Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgescheidenis 76(n.i.): 189-226. Van Asselt WJ (1997) Johannes Coccejus. Portret van een zeventiende-eeuws theoloog op oude en nieuwe wegen. Heerenveen: Groen en Zoon. Van Asselt WJ (2000) Structural Elements in the Eschatology of Johannes Cocceius. Calvin Theological Journal 35(1): 76-104. Van Asselt WJ (2001) The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669) [translated by Raymond A. Blacketer]. Leiden: Brill. Van den Brink GA (2008) Herman Witsius en het antinomianisme: met tekst en vertaling van de Animadversiones Irenicae. Apeldoorn: Instituut voor Reformatieonderzoek. Van den Brink GA (2016) Tot zonde gemaakt. De Engelse antinomiaanse controverse (1690-1700) over de toerekening van de zonden aan Christus, met bijzondere aandacht voor Herman Witsius’ Animadversiones Irenicae (1696). Kampen: Summum Academic. Van den Brink G and Höpfl HM, eds (2015) Calvinism and the Making of the European Mind. Leiden: Brill. Van Rooden PT (1989) Theology, Biblical Scholarship, and Rabbinical Studies in the Seventeenth Century. Constantijn l’Empereur (1591-1648), Professor of Hebrew and Theology at Leiden [translated by J. C. Grayson]. Leiden: Brill. Van Ruler JA (1991) New Philosophy to Old Standards. Voetius’ Vindication of Divine Concurrence and Secondary Causality. Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 71(n.i.): 58-91. Van Ruler JA (1995) The Crisis of Causality. Voetius and Descartes on God, Nature, and Change. Leiden: Brill. Verbeek T (1992) Descartes and the Dutch: Early Reactions to Cartesianism (16371650) [Journal of the History of Philosophy Monograph Series]. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992. Verbeek T (2000) L’Impossibilité de la théologie: Meyer et Spinoza. In Benitez M, McKenna A, Paganini G, and Salem J (eds) Materia actuosa: Antiquité, âge classique, Lumières. Mélanges en l’honneur d’Olivier Bloch. Paris: Champion, pp. 273-298. Wallace DD (2011) Shapers of English Calvinism, 1660-1714. Variety, Persistence, and Transformation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Witte J (2007) The Reformation of Rights. Law, Religion, and Human Rights in Early Modern Calvinism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Witte J (2009) A Demonstrative Theory of Natural Law. Johannes Althusius and the Rise of Calvinist Jurisprudence. Ecclesiastical Law Journal 11(3): 248-265. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Perichoresis Volume 14. Issue 3 (2016): 17-43 DOI: 10.1515/perc-2016-0014 REFORMED CONFESSIONS AND SCHOLASTICISM. DIVERSITY AND HARMONY ANDREAS J. BECK* Evangelical Theological Faculty, Leuven ABSTRACT. This paper discusses the complex relationship of Reformed confessions and Reformed orthodox scholasticism. It is argued that Reformed confessions differ in genre and method from Reformed scholastic works, although such differences between confessional and scholastic language should not be mistaken for representing different doctrines that are no longer in harmony with each other. What is more, it is precisely the scholastic background and training of the authors of such confessions that enabled them to place their confessional writings in the broader catholic tradition of the Christian church and to include patristic and medieval theological insights. Thus proper attention to their scholastic background helps to see that at least in some confessions the doctrine of predestination, for instance, is not as ‘rigid’ as one might think at first sight. In order to demonstrate that the doctrine of the Reformed confessions was much in line with the scholastic theology of Reformed orthodoxy, this paper discusses, after having explained the terms ‘Reformed orthodoxy’ and ‘scholasticism’, the early Reformed scholastic theologians Beza, Zanchi, and Ursinus, who also have written confessional texts. The paper also includes a more detailed discussion of the Belgic Confession and the scholastic background of the Canons of Dordt and the Westminster Confession, thereby focusing on the doctrines of God, providence, and predestination. KEY WORDS: Reformed confessions, scholasticism, Belgic Confession, Synod of Dordt, predestination Introduction Around 1565, we observe not only the rise of most national Reformed confessions, but also the beginning of Reformed orthodoxy and scholasticism. At the start of what is now called, in socio-political and cultural research, the process of ‘confessionalization’ (Schilling 1986; Ehrenpreis and Lotz-Heumann 2002), there was an increasing need for the education of elites within the different confessions (Selderhuis and Wriedt 2006). This coincidence alone might suggest that Reformed confessions and scholasticism are not necessarily opposed to each other. Yet ‘scholasticism’ generally has the reputation of being ‘speculative’, ‘metaphysical’, ‘arid’, ‘dry’, ‘rigid’, or ‘dead’, often * ANDREAS J. BECK (PhD 2007, Utrecht University) is professor of historical theology as well as academic dean at the Evangelical Theological Faculty, Leuven, Belgium. Email: andreas.beck@etf.edu. © EMANUEL UNIVERSITY of ORADEA PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 18 ANDREAS J. BECK even among those theologians and researchers who would ascribe, at least to some Reformed confessions, attributes as ‘vitality’, ‘warm-heartedness’, and ‘deep spirituality’. Also, with many the Reformed confessions have the reputation of being, as a result of their pastoral tone, more ‘soft’ on doctrinal issues than the allegedly stern and stringent scholastic treatises of the Reformed orthodox. In this paper I will analyse the relationship between Reformed confessions and Reformed orthodox scholasticism. In a first step, we will explain the terms ‘Reformed orthodoxy’ and ‘scholasticism’. Second, we will briefly look at three early proponents of Reformed scholasticism who also have writtenconfessional texts (Beza, Zanchi, and Ursinus). Is there a difference in content between their various writings? In examining this, we will focus on the doctrines of God, providence and predestination, although some broader soteriological issues will also be addressed. This will also be the focus, thirdly, of a more detailed discussion of the Belgic Confession. Forth, we will briefly explore the scholastic background of the Canons of Dordt and the Westminster Confession. The final section offers some concluding remarks. Reformed Orthodoxy and Scholasticism Being a compound of the Greek terms ‘orthos’ and ‘doxa’, ‘orthodoxy’ originally means ‘right opinion’ or ‘right teaching’, referring to a particular content, which must be defended in the face of dissent. Taken this way, the term ‘Reformed orthodoxy’ would be used to refer to a specific denominational doctrine of the Reformed churches in general terms. However, ‘Reformed orthodoxy’ can also be used as an epochal term to denote a certain age, namely the period in the history of Reformed Protestantism after the early Reformation in Early Modernity (Muller 2003b; van Asselt 2013). The starting point (or terminus a quo) of Reformed orthodoxy is generally placed around the year 1565, when a large part of the national Reformed confessions had emerged, including the French Confession or Confessio Gallicana (1559), the Scottish Confession (1560), the Belgic Confession or Confessio Belgica (1561), and the Second Helvetic Confession (1566). The Heidelberg Catechism (1563), largely written by a pupil of Melanchthon, Zacharias Ursinus (1534-1583), falls in this period as well. This is also the period after the demise of many reformers of the second generation, as Philip Melanchthon († 1560), Johannes a Lasco († 1560), Peter Martyr Vermigili († 1562), Wolfgang Musculus († 1563), John Calvin († 1564), Andreas Hyperius († 1564), and Guillaume Farel († 1565). The end of the epoch (or terminus ad quem) is less clearly determined; historians oscillate between 1725 and 1775. This reminds us of the fact that periodization is generally the activity of historians who divide history into different epochs, and not a feature of history itself. To be sure, there has been PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Reformed Confessions and Scholasticism. Diversity and Harmony 19 an important shift between the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century, especially around the conquests of Napoleon, after which at many universities the expertise of reading Latin scholastic texts became lost. With Richard Muller, we can further divide the epoch of Reformed orthodoxy into three phases: early Orthodoxy (about 1565-1640), high Orthodoxy (about 1640-ca. 1725) and late Orthodoxy (about 1725-1770). Both early and high Orthodoxy can be in turn divided into two sub-phases. In case of early Orthodoxy, the demarcation line between both sub-phases can be seen in the Synod of Dordt in 1618-19, and in case of high Orthodoxy, the demarcation line between both sub-phases can be seen in the death of Gisbertus Voetius in 1676 and of François Turrettini in 1687 (Muller 2003a: 311). It should be noted that the terms ‘orthodoxy’ and ‘scholasticism’ are not interchangeable. While the term ‘orthodoxy’ is mainly used as an epochal term, ‘scholasticism’ refers primarily to a scientific practice or method (Muller 2003a: 25-46; van Asselt 2011). Here it is useful to remember its etymological derivation from the Latin word schola (‘school’). To cite the medievalist Lambertus M. de Rijk, ‘scholasticism’ is a collective term for all scientific activity, especially theological and philosophical, which follows a specific method. This method is characterised, both on the level of research and on the level of teaching, by the use of a constantly recurring system of concepts, distinctions, definitions, propositional analyses, argumentational techniques, and disputational methods (de Rijk 1985: 20-1, my translation; cf. ibid., 82-105). Scholasticism pertains to a set of instruments to which students were introduced early on in their education (i.e. already at the artes-faculty) from the time of the establishment of the universities ca. 1200 down into the eighteenth century. This method was also applied in the Protestant universities and academies, although there have been significant modifications largely due to Renaissance humanism (Vos 2013; cf. Perreiah 2014). Thus the Sitz im Leben, the historical and cultural context of ‘scholasticism’, is the medieval or early modern university or academy. The common use of the scholastic method by Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed scholars may at first glance give the impression of doctrinal unity. However, recent investigations have unveiled a high diversity of detail and insights, even within Reformed scholasticism itself. The Reformed orthodox systems did not form a monolithic bloc, even if they fitted within confessional borders, which, more than in the Lutheran tradition, varied somewhat in different regions and times. Moreover, important Reformers such as Martin Bucer (born 1491), Wolfgang Musculus (born 1497), Peter Martyr Vermigli (born 1499), and John Calvin (born 1509), all of whom had been influenced by both medieval scholasticism and PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 20 ANDREAS J. BECK Renaissance humanism to some extent, differed in many respects. The Reformed tradition does not have a counterpart to the Lutheran Book of Concord; as Ursinus emphasised in his reaction to the Book of Concord, the Reformed assigned higher authority to the catholic public writings, i.e. the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds and the Symbolum Quicumque, than to their own particular writings, i.e. the Reformed confessions (Ursinus 1612: 2:540-3). For all these reasons, the term ‘Calvinism’ is quite misleading and the socalled ‘Calvin against the Calvinists’ debate seems to be largely obsolete (Muller 2011; cf. Beck 2016). The Reformed theologians themselves reflected on the meaning of ‘scholasticism’. Thus, as early as 1546 the Marburg theologian Andreas Hyperius (1511-1564) started to develop the distinction between a ‘scholastic’ treatment of theology in the university setting and a ‘popular’ treatment of theology in preaching and popular writing (Sinnema 1999). In more detail, the Dutch Utrecht theologian Gisbertus Voetius (1589-1676) addressed the issue of ‘scholasticism’ in his disputation De theologia scholastica (1640) (1648: 1229). He also understands scholasticism as a method: in a wider sense ‘scholasticism’ means the ‘form and method of theology which are current in European schools’, and its name is derived from the fact that ‘it is handed down in the schools, and that its essence and method (ratio ac methodus) are different from the theology which is proclaimed in the churches’ (1648: 13). In the strict sense of the word, ‘scholasticism’ is to be understood as that form and method of theology which can first be found synoptically in the four books of [Lombard’s] Sentences, and which Thomas Aquinas after him set forth in the three parts of his Summa theologiae. To these should next be added all commentators of the Sententiae with their disputations and commentaries on Lombard, and the later scholastics with their commentaries on Thomas. Finally, to them also belong all authors of anthologies and quodlibeta who devised further quaestiones and quodlibeta (Voetius 1648: 13-4). Voetius immediately goes on to add, however, that the scholastic theology he supports, or ‘the scholastic, that is, the didactic and apologetical (elencticus) professor of theology’, is far (toto coelo) removed from the scholastic Sentencecommentators (1648: 14). As proved by the specific criticisms which Voetius offers against the Sentence-commentators in the rest of the disputation, he does not so much criticise scholastic method as such, but rather its exaggerated use, when it is applied to inappropriate questions or improperly used in attempts to exceed the limits of human reason (Voetius 1648: 23-24; cf. Beck 2007: 27-8). For Voetius such attempts do not constitute good examples of the sound use of scholastic method as he himself wants to practise it. It is in this latter sense that he recommended the use of scholastic method to his colleagues and students, and, in spite of all objections, the study of scholastic PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Reformed Confessions and Scholasticism. Diversity and Harmony 21 theologians from different times and confessions (1648: 27-9). Thus he studied with his students in detail medieval scholastic texts such as the Summa theologiae of Thomas Aquinas (see Beck 2013). This understanding of scholasticism as primarily a method stands in stark contrast to Brian Armstrong’s still influential definition according to which scholasticism implies a ‘theological approach which asserts religious truth on the basis of deductive ratiocination from given assumptions and principles’ and is ‘invariably based upon an Aristotelian philosophical commitment’, whereby ‘reason assumes at least equal standing with faith in theology’, leading to ‘a pronounced interest in metaphysical matters, in abstract, speculative thought’ (1969: 32). It can easily be seen that Reformed scholasticism, understood that way, would invariably be in conflict with the Reformed confessions. Instead, however, the two of them fall together in a harmonious way, as we will now demonstrate. Early Reformed Scholastics and Their Confessional Writings After 1560, we can observe an increasing awareness of late medieval discussions on relevant issues at the Reformed and newly founded Protestant universities and academies. It is quite significant, for instance, that the library of the Genevan Academy, founded in 1559 by John Calvin, included a great number of works by important medieval scholastic theologians such as Thomas Aquinas, Dionysius the Carthusian, Duns Scotus, and Gregory of Rimini (Ganoczy 1969: 103-8). The increasing interest in late medieval works and the use of the ‘toolkit’ of scholastic distinctions led to more nuance and refinement in theological doctrine, including providence and predestination, when compared to the theology of Calvin (Beck 2016). We can already observe this in the works of the Italian refugee Vermigli, who was older than Calvin, and in Calvin’s successor Theodore Beza, a French refugee (Baschera 2008, 2009; Zuidema 2008; Muller 1988, 1999). Thus Beza, to focus first of all on him, not only argued that the contingency or freedom of secondary causes was not removed by the ‘necessity’ of the divine decree, but, in contrast with Calvin, he also endorsed the medieval concept of divine permission, albeit without opposing it to the divine decree (Beza 1670: 104-7, 112-13, 99100). Later Reformed scholastics, such as Gisbertus Voetius, would adopt the full refinements of this concept that can be found in Aquinas and Scotus: God does not have a positive act of will in relation to sin and the fall, although He positively wills His not having a positive act of will towards sin (Goudriaan 2006: 188-92; Beck 2007: 334-44, Beck 2011 (on Calvin and Voetius); Vos et al. 2003: 178-92). In contrast to what much older scholarship on Beza had concluded, his use of the scholastic method did not lead to a harsher version of predestina- PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 22 ANDREAS J. BECK tion than that of Calvin, and surely not to a rationalistic, deductive predestinarianism, but rather enabled him to avoid undesirable implications (contra Kickel 1967; see now Mallinson 2003). Both Calvin and Beza denied that God would be the author of sin, but Beza had better tools in hand to argue that this indeed did not follow from the doctrine of predestination. Other Reformed orthodox theologians in this time such as Girolamo Zanchi, Zacharias Ursinus, and Franciscus Junius, used the same scholastic toolkit, which became only more refined in the seventeenth century (te Velde 2013: 19-43; van Asselt, Bac, et al. 2010; Wagner-Peterson 2013). If Reformed orthodox theologians used the scholastic method for their academic work at the universities and academies, this surely does not mean that all their writings were scholastic. Especially those in the vernacular often were not. We can see this, for instance, in their confessional writings. Thus Beza’s personal and quite extensive Confession de la foy chrestienne (Confession of the Christian Faith), first published in 1559 and later in many more editions, was written in typical confessional language and included several passages that expressed his pastoral concern. A striking example is the lengthy section 4:20 which he inserted in the Latin version and later French versions, in which he attempted to give a ‘remedy against the last and most dangerous temptation’, namely ‘whether we are elect or not’ (Beza 1560: 68-79, 1563: 70-80). There he encourages his readers that their salvation does not rest on their faith as such, but on Christ, whom they can trust. Referring to Matthew 17:20 he adds that ‘faith is so powerful that, according to God’s promise, even a single seed of faith, how small it might be, safely accepts Jesus Christ’ (Beza 1560: 71-2, 1563: 73). This pastoral approach is arguably compatible with Beza’s doctrine of predestination in his more scholastic texts and in his famous Tabula praedestinationis, when properly understood in its historical context (see Muller 1999; Rouwendal 2016: ch. 3). Moving to Girolamo Zanchi (1516-1590) now, we see a similar pattern. Zanchi, an Italian refugee, was another important figure of early Reformed scholasticism who wrote a confession of faith. During his professorship at Strasbourg and later in Heidelberg and Neustadt an der Haardt, he exerted great influence on Reformed theology in the early modern period. Although he was the first to have been asked to write a Reformed counterpart to the Lutheran Formula of Concord (1577), this task was taken over by Jean-François Salvard, Beza, and Lambert Daneau, who finally compiled the Harmonia confessionum fidei (1581), a selected harmony which never achieved such significance as the Formula of Concord. Zanchi, in turn, wrote his own personal confession, De religione christiana fides, which he published in 1586 and which also appeared in Cambridge in an English translation, entitled Confession of Christian Religion (1599); both texts have been made accessible in an excellent edition by Luca Baschera and Christian Moser (Zanchi 2007). PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Reformed Confessions and Scholasticism. Diversity and Harmony 23 In contrast to Zanchi’s massive volumes on the doctrine of God, which show strong Thomistic and also some Scotistic influences (Zanchi 1572, 1577; cf. Goris 2001), his confession does not belong to the genre of scholastic writings, although it can be read as a compendium of his theology and is surely more than a brief introduction of the faith to children. The confession is structured in 30 chapters and commences with a detailed discussion of Scripture as the foundation of the entire Christian religion (Zanchi 2007: 1:11229). Similar but fuller discussions of Scripture typically can be found in the prolegomena of Reformed scholastic systems, which are reminiscent of the prologues to the medieval commentaries of the Sentences of Peter Lombard. The remaining 29 chapters follow roughly the outline of the Apostles’ Creed. The most extensive chapters are devoted to ‘Christ the Redeemer’ (ch. 11), the ‘True Dispensation of the Redemption’ (ch. 12), the sacraments (ch. 14), especially the Lord’s Supper and the reservations about the Lutheran doctrine of ubiquity (ch. 14), the doctrine of justification (ch. 19), the militant church (ch. 24), and the church government (ch. 25) (Zanchi 2007: 1:198-229, 230-53, 265-87, 299-319, 335-51, 389-425, 425-79). It is telling that the two mentioned ecclesiological chapters are the most detailed by far. In contrast, the doctrine of predestination, which is discussed together with the doctrine of divine foreknowledge, receives relatively little attention (ch. 3). Here, Zanchi tends to what later will be called an infralapsarian position (Zanchi 2007: 1:136-46). Not all men are predestined to eternal life, but, as Zanchi adds with pastoral concern, everyone should ‘stedfastlie […] trust that, when he is called to Christ, he is called according to the eternall decree and election of God’, and if he struggles with the assurance of election, he should ‘not desparre, but desire of God that he will helpe his unbeleefe, hoping that he may in time be better assured’ (Zanchi 2007: 1:139, 141-3). In the likewise brief chapter on divine providence (ch. 6), Zanchi stresses that many things occur contingently with respect to secondary causes, although they are necessary with respect to God. 1 Moreover, he rejects as erroneous not only ‘all those philosophers, which either do wholie take awaye the providence of God out of the worlde’, but also ‘those which woulde have all thinges to come to passe so merely necessarily, that they take awaye all casualtie and deprive men of all libertie’, and ‘those which will have God so to worke all thinges in all men, that they also doe balsphemouslie prove him to bee su,nergon a ioint-worker and an author of sinne’ (Zanchi 2007: 1:1635). Consequently, Zanchi teaches in chapter eight with Augustine (1865: 899) that ‘free will is always free (namely from constraint) but is not always good’. 1 Zanchi (2007: 1:156-65, esp. 156-69) does not explain whether he understands the necessity of secondary causes in respect to God in the sense Aquinas did in S.Th. I, q. 19, a. 8, or rather in terms of Scotus’s interpretation of the necessity of the consequence and its compatibility with true contingency of the consequent (see Lectura I, d. 39, n. 48, 162– 65). PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 24 ANDREAS J. BECK It is important to note that, albeit Zanchi’s confession clearly does not belong to the genre of technical scholastic texts, there are no signs of any tension with respect to theological content if one compares for instance chapters six and eight with sections on free choices (and providence) in two of his fullfledged scholastic treatises (1619: part 3:704-10, part 4:67-94). Indeed, the scholastic treatises arguably present with much more detail largely the same doctrine that is concisely summarized in his confession. Zanchi had been a close colleague of Ursinus in Heidelberg and later in Neustadt an der Haardt. It is to him that we turn now, examining a third example of a Reformed scholastic who also wrote confessional texts. Apart from having written several other catechisms, Ursinus was probably the main author of the Heidelberg Catechism (1653), one of the most influential Reformed confessional writings. He ranks among the most important pupils of Philipp Melanchthon, but was also influenced by Vermigli, Bullinger, and Calvin. His lectures on the Heidelberg Catechism are reflected in the posthumously published commentary on this Catechism, which was re-issued in many versions and exerted strong influence on Reformed scholasticism (Platt 1982). As Wagner-Peterson has argued, the doctrine of predestination became increasingly important in Ursinus’ theological work during his years in Heidelberg, where he met refugees such as his colleague Girolamo Zanchi who found consolation in this doctrine (328-9). Yet the Heidelberg Catechism only alludes to predestination (Schaff 1983: 3:324-5), although it starts with the question: ‘What is thy only comfort in life and in death?’ (Schaff 1983: 3:307-8). Ursinus explains in his commentary on the catechism, that this question and its answer have been placed at the beginning because they entail ‘the scope and sum of the whole catechism’ (Ursinus 1598: 21). Apparently, the question could be answered appropriately in the catechetical context without delving into the depths of divine predestination. At another point, also related to soteriological issues, the catechism shows more clearly influences of scholastic texts. Thus the questions and answers 11-19 of the Heidelberg Catechism, also related to soteriological issues, which partly reflect Ursinus’s scholastic doctoral theses from August 1562 (1612: 1:744-53), have often been criticized for their dependence on Anselm of Canterbury’s early scholastic doctrine of satisfaction. In response, some theologians tried to distance the Heidelberg Catechism as far as possible from Anselm’s Cur Deus homo (e.g. Metz 1970). Yet its dependence on Anselm should neither be overstated, nor should it be downplayed (see Beck 2014). Moreover, it should not be overlooked that Anselm’s thought experiment against the sceptics, even if it has been devised sola ratione and remote Christo, fell within the framework of his declared program of faith seeking understanding (fides quaerens intellectum) and presupposed that human beings were dependent on PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Reformed Confessions and Scholasticism. Diversity and Harmony 25 God for ultimate happiness, have fallen into sin, and that this affected all people. Anselm also presupposed the authority of the Catholic faith and thus especially that of Scripture (Anselm 1946: 1.10; Kienzler 1981). His point was not that God had discharged his anger in Christ because of his wounded honour; in contrast, he states that the glory of God cannot be impaired (Anselm 1946: 1.14-5; den Bok 2001; Plasger 1993). Nor did Anselm’s argument depend on the medieval feudal system, since it can be detached therefrom (McIntyre 1954; Southern 1990: 221-27; van den Brink 2003). Fundamental to his argument was rather that God’s justice required either punishment (poena) of the guilt of human beings, or satisfaction (satisfactio), and that God decided to do (facere) in Christ, the God-Man, precisely enough (satis) to fulfil this requirement (Anselm 1946: 1.15). It is important to note, finally, that Anselm did not argue for a strict or absolute necessity of the incarnation, but only for a hypothetical necessity (necessitas sequens), given presuppositions such as God’s compassionate, yet righteous, will to redeem human beings (Anselm 1946: 2.5, 17; Plasger 1993: 25961). Taking into account the findings of recent research on Anselm, the catechism’s partial reliance on his scholastic doctrine of satisfaction is not necessarily unbiblical. In sum, we have seen how Beza, Zanchi, and Ursinus, three proponents of early Reformed orthodoxy, contributed not only to the rise of Reformed scholasticism, but also to the diversity of Reformed confessional writings. Their confessional writings, including particular the Heidelberg Catechism, are surely not scholastic texts, although the authors made use of their scholastic and humanistic training which enabled them to place themselves in the broader catholic tradition of the Christian church. We will now zoom in on two Reformed confessions in particular, the Belgic Confession and the Canons of Dordt, in order to show from some of their various articles how their doctrinal content, though expounded in a different style, was much in line with the scholastic theology of Reformed orthodoxy and is at some points more properly understood when studied in the context of Reformed scholasticism. Scholasticism and the Belgic Confession The Confessio Belgica originated in the context of the persecuted ‘churches under the cross’ in the southern Netherlands and was meant to demonstrate to the authorities that the faith of the persecuted Christians was Catholic and thus in line with the Church of the centuries (this section is partly based on Beck 2012). Guido De Brès (1522-1567), its author, had studied in Geneva, possibly under Beza, and, as is clear from one of his other works, had some interest in patristic theology (de Boer 2013). PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 26 ANDREAS J. BECK The first article of the Confessio Belgica has often been criticized because it includes a list of several attributes of God as it also can typically be found in scholastic systems: We all believe with the heart, and confess with the mouth, that there is one only simple and spiritual Being, which we call God; and that he is eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, immutable, infinite, almighty, perfectly wise, just, good, and the overflowing fountain of all good (Schaff 1983: 3:383-84). This article should not be understood as an attempt at an abstract conceptualization of the divine Being, but as an expression of faith in the context of persecution which refers to some divine attributes as they have been included through the centuries in the classical catholic doctrine of God. Thus it is striking that De Brès, obviously alluding to Romans 10:10, begins with the words: ‘We all believe with the heart, and confess with the mouth’, whereas the Confessio Gallicana, which is based on a draft of John Calvin and was used by De Brès, commenced with the simple phrase ‘Nous croyons et confessons’ (Schaff 1983: 3:383, 359). In the next phrase, ‘We believe […] that there is one only simple and spiritual Being (essence), which we call God’, De Brès seems to took over from Beza’s Confession de la foy chrestienne (1559) the words ‘which we call God’ as Nicolaas Gootjes has shown, De Brès relied in several articles on Beza’s Confession (1559: 1; 2007: 71-91, esp. 71-2). What follows is a traditional list of some divine attributes that are common to all three hypostaseis of the one divine ousia (cf. for this scholastic pattern Beck 2006: 196-97, 204-5): ‘[…] and that he is eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, immutable, infinite, almighty, perfectly wise, just, good, and the overflowing fountain of all good’. De Brès again comes close to the text of the Confessio Gallicana, but it is surprising that the reference to the divine potency or almightiness which is already found in the Gallicana (‘qui peut toutes choses’) was added to the Confessio Belgica only at a later stage. This addition was the result of a revision by the Synod of Dordt in 1619 by which, surprisingly enough, it met a request of the Remonstrants.2 The encouraging concluding phrase, ‘and the overflowing fountain of all good’, was also added later, that is, at the Synod of Antwerp (1566) (Gootjes 2007: 122). Thus, the original document was less ‘pastoral’ in tone here than we might think. The enumeration of divine attributes in the first article follows a classic pattern and reflects the Catholic tradition of the Church Fathers and medieval theologians such as Irenaeus, Augustine, Anselm, Thomas, Bonaventura, 2 Gootjes (2007: 144, 153). For a discussion of all alterations, see Kuyper (1899: 365–88). Voetius compiled his own list of alterations in order to show that they usually did not have substantial implications (1663: 4:61-74). PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Reformed Confessions and Scholasticism. Diversity and Harmony 27 and Duns Scotus. The same is true for the articles 8-11 on the three Trinitarian Persons, where De Brès refers approvingly to the creeds of the early church (Schaff 1983: 3:339-94). These articles follow those on the knowledge of God (article 2) and the doctrine of Scripture (articles 3-7). Regarding the first article, it should be noted that according to some scholars, such as J. R. Wiskerke, the article is bent by ‘the heavy burden’ of ‘a Greek philosophical idea of God’ (1978: 93-161, esp. 122). The article would give rise to a grave misunderstanding, namely that the simplicity and spirituality of God would lead ‘finally to a description of God’s essence, by which God is “classified” within a single sequence which comprises both the Creator and the creatures’ (Wiskerke 1978: 142). This argument seems to be based on a misunderstanding, however (cf. Gootjes 1984: 124-75, esp. 220). According to classical theology, the simplicity or simplicitas of God means precisely that God is completely different from any creature, because the term connotes that every type of complexity is excluded (Rikhof 1988: 30-32; Muller 2003b: 2:275-84). What is ruled out by the term simplicitas is not God’s unicity nor his personality and vitality, but the idea that He would be composed of several entities as this is characteristic for creatures. Thus the Reformed scholastic theologian Voetius sees an important practical use in the doctrine of the simplicity of God: It not only shows that God is unique and totally different from everything created, but it also excludes any imperfection. As such, the doctrine helps us to speak of God confidently and reverently. What is more, it brings the ‘light of a lofty mysticism’ and a ‘pious contemplation’ when we consider that there are three Persons in the one divine essence, each of whom possesses the entire essence, in mutual permeation (emperichoresis); thus, the doctrine is at odds with the antitrinitarian thoughts of the Socinians. Finally, it becomes evident how we can only think spiritually of God’s essence and how ‘all brute and earthly concepts’ are completely insufficient, although the simplicity of God does point to His trustworthiness and that of His promises. For Voetius it is clear that ‘this doctrine is not purely speculative, scholastic, metaphysical, or fruitless with respect to all confidence and every piety’ (Voetius 1648: 244-45; cf. Beck 2007: 233-36). Voetius surely did not stand alone with this interpretation, namely that attributing ‘simplicity’ to God does not attempt to give a definition of God. For example, also Samuel Maresius emphasised this in his commentary on the Confessio Belgica, while referring to 1 Timothy 6:16 and Psalm 8:11: ‘But there is no reason why anyone would think that this first article gives an exact definition of God. For God, who is infinite and ‘dwells in unapproachable light’ and ‘made darkness his secret place [...], cannot be precisely defined’ (Maresius 1652: 16). There has also been quite some criticism of the second article. According to Karl Barth, it is plainly absurd (Unfug) that we know God by two means as PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 28 ANDREAS J. BECK stated in the second article: ‘first by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe’, and secondly, ‘by his holy and divine Word’ (1940: 140-1). Barth is wary of a natural theology which would give access to God independently of Christ. In line with the Confessio Belgica, Reformed orthodoxy would have reverted, against the intent of the Reformation, to natural theology, which is independent of God’s revelation. However, it is highly questionable whether Barth does justice here to the Confessio Belgica and also to Reformed scholasticism. If the Confession refers to creatures as ‘characters’ or letters in a ‘most elegant book’, ‘leading us to contemplate the invisible things of God, namely his eternal power and Godhead’ (Schaff 1983: 3:384, emphasis in original, corresponding with quote from Romans 1:20), this can be seen as a form of natural theology indeed. Nevertheless, natural theology in this sense is clearly not meant to distract from God’s ‘holy and divine Word’ or to open the way to speculative theology which is independent from the divine Word. Instead, this form of natural knowledge is restricted to what is ‘sufficient to convince men, and leave them without excuse’, and may thereby point to the divine Word, by which ‘he makes himself more clearly and fully known to us’. (Schaff 1983: 3:384; cf. van den Brink 2011; Kunz 2013). This is not different for someone like Voetius, a prominent representative of Reformed scholasticism. For him, natural theology does not constitute a ‘sub-structure’ for supernatural theology that must first be acquired before one can turn to actual or revealed theology (pace A. Schweizer, K. Barth, H.-E. Weber). Only for the unbeliever is there a gap between natural and supernatural theology, since natural theology falls outside the soteriological context (Beck 2007: 14974; cf. Muller 2003b: 1:270-310). Moving to article 17 now, we can see that our interpretation of the first two articles is confirmed and that the Confessio Belgica does not endorse something like a Greek-Hellenistic conception of God as the Unmoved Mover. This important article is written in a narrative style, reflecting divine passion: We believe that our most gracious God, in his admirable wisdom and goodness, seeing that man had thus thrown himself into temporal and spiritual death, and made himself wholly miserable, was pleased to seek and comfort him when he trembling fled from his presence, promising him that he would give his Son, who should be made of a woman, to bruise the head of the serpent, and would make him happy (Schaff 1983: 3:402). Within the overall structure of the Confessio Belgica, this article forms the transition from the doctrine of divine election to Christology. It is useful to keep in mind the dynamics of article 17, which describes God’s ways in time towards humanity, when reading article 16 on divine election in eternity (cf. Maresius 1652: 245; van Eck 1997: 16-18). PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Reformed Confessions and Scholasticism. Diversity and Harmony 29 Article 16, on divine election, is brief. There is no double predestination (praedestinatio gemina) to be found. Quite rightly, therefore, the orthodox Reformed theologian Festus Hommius in his Specimen controversiarum Belgicarum (1618) superscribed the article ‘Of Eternal Election’ with the Latin title ‘De divina praedestinatione’ (1618: 58). The title is aptly chosen, as it follows, in fact, the medieval pattern: predestination (praedestinatio) is synonymous with election (electio) and not a kind of double decree, which would unfold more or less symmetrically into two directions: We believe that all the posterity of Adam, being thus fallen into perdition and ruin by the sin of our first parents, God then did manifest himself such as he is; that is to say, merciful and just: merciful, since he delivers and preserves from this perdition all whom he, in his eternal and unchangeable council, of mere goodness hath elected in Christ Jesus our Lord, without any respect to their works: just, in leaving others in the fall and perdition wherein they have involved themselves (Schaff 1983: 3:401). The Confessio Belgica indeed identifies predestination with election: predestination refers to the ‘eternal and unchangeable counsel’, by which God ‘of mere goodness hath elected in Christ Jesus our Lord’ those to which He shows his mercy, i.e. the believers. Predestination thus is election in Christ by God’s mercy. There is no parallel counsel of reprobation in the Confessio Belgica; it just states that God manifested his justice by ‘leaving others in the fall and perdition wherein they have involved themselves’ (Schaff 1983: 3:401). Whereas election is out of mercy, and in Christ, those remaining in the fall and perdition, by their own responsibility and intention, are outside of Christ and under the just divine judgement (Maresius 1652: 241). Thus the Confessio Belgica does not teach a version of double predestination in the sense of a strict parallelism of election and reprobation, nor does it hold to a supralapsarian position. It does entail, however, a parallelism of mercy and justice which is firmly rooted in the Western Catholic tradition. The combination of divine mercy and justice in the doctrine of predestination is not only found in Calvin and Beza, but also in Augustine, Anselm of Canterbury, Thomas Aquinas, and John Duns Scotus, to mention only a few outstanding names (cf. Maresius 1652: 239). Indeed there is little if anything at all in this article of the Belgic Confession that would be specific to the Reformed tradition. Moreover, the Confessio Belgica presents the doctrine of election in a soteriological perspective as the deeper dimension of divine grace, after the doctrine of God, revelation, Trinity, creation, and the human fall, and immediately before Christology and salvation. In order to properly read article 16 against its historical background, we have to keep two things in mind. Firstly, the doctrine of predestination of PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 30 ANDREAS J. BECK Luther or Calvin had remained virtually undisputed within all churches of the Reformation until 1560. Although the interpretations of the doctrine of, say, Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli, Bucer, Calvin, Bullinger, and Brenz differ to some extent, there were initially no inner-Protestant polemics on this doctrine. This only changed in 1560, when the ‘Gnesio-Lutheran’ theologian Tilemann Heshus added an epilogue titled Aliquot errores Calvini to his book, De praesentia corporis Christi in coena Domini contra Sacramentarios (Heshusius 1560: Sviijv-Tvijr; cf. Krüger 2004: 69-96; Mahlmann 1997: 125). The same book also formed the occasion for the dispute on the Lord’s Supper and predestination between Zanchi and Johannes Marbach in Strasbourg (Kittelson 1977; van ’t Spijker 1993). This was in 1561, the same year that the first edition of the Confessio Belgica was published. Secondly, we have to take into account that recent research has largely disproved the highly influential claim of Schleiermacher’s pupil, Alexander Schweizer, who affirmed that the doctrine of predestination formed the central dogma of Reformed orthodoxy (Schweizer 1854-1856). Calling predestination a central dogma is not only inappropriate for Reformed doctrine in the sixteenth century, but also for the seventeenth and even eighteenth centuries, although it might apply, in some sense, to the nineteenth century (Muller 2003a: 63-6, 94-100, 2003b: 1:123-32; van Asselt and Dekker 2001). The Scholastic Background of the Canons of Dordt and the Westminster Confession Moving now to the Canons of Dordt, part of its prehistory was determined by pastoral concerns which had come to the fore in the Low Countries as a result of the way in which the doctrine of predestination had been received (this section is partly based on Beck 2012). Around the year 1582, two Reformed ministers of Delft, Reginald Donteclock and Arent Cornelisz, claimed that the doctrine of predestination had to follow the axiom miseratio praesupponit miseriam, which means that human sin should be seen as the cause of reprobation and that one should avoid ‘to ascend to the high mystery of the ultimate reason for the fall of Adam’. Thus they advocated what was later called an infralapsarian view on the object of predestination over against a supralapsarian view. In this context, Cornelisz referred to the Confessio Belgica and the Heidelberg Catechism which did not attempt ‘to ascend to a higher level’ (Bakhuizen van den Brink et al. 1960: 1:265-67; cf. Donteclock 1611). In 1609, however, Donteclock explained that those who still would ‘ascend to a higher level’ and speak of ‘possible creatures’ as the object of predestination rather than actual sinners, seem to differ more on the didactical sense than on the level of content. Donteclock especially thought of Franciscus Gomarus in this respect, who preferred the supralapsarian view (1609: A3a; cf. van Itterzon 1979: 156-7). PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Reformed Confessions and Scholasticism. Diversity and Harmony 31 Five years earlier, Gomarus had come into conflict with Jakobus Arminius on the doctrine of predestination. In order to understand the background of this conflict, we have to consider two developments taking place in the second half of the sixteenth century. The first concerns the so-called Erastian movement, which included several refugees from the Rhineland. Some ministers, such as Jan Gerritszoon Versteghe (Anastasius Veluanus), Hubrecht Duifhuis, Caspar Coolhaes, Herman Herbertsz, and Cornelis Wiggertsz, felt uneasy with article 16 of the Confessio Belgica. They were afraid that the doctrine of predestination would imply that God was the author of sin (van Oppenraaij 1906: 44-120; cf. Mahlmann 1997; van Veen and Spohnholz 2014; van Gelderen 2014). Secondly, and even more importantly, the conflict between Arminius and Gomarus closely resembled the catholic controversies on grace in the late sixteenth century (congregatio de auxiliis gratiae). As recent research has shown, Arminius followed the position of the Jesuit theologians Luis de Molina, Petrus Fonseca, and Francisco Suárez, in basing election on God’s foreknowledge of human faith by using the concept of divine middle knowledge (scientia media). Gomarus, in his reaction, came close to the response of the Dominican theologian Domingo Báñez and his supporters (Dekker 1993, 1996; Muller 1991; cf. Stanglin 2007). For Gomarus, election was not based on divine foreknowledge but on the contingent divine decree, which in his eyes left room for free and contingent human activity (see his disputation in van Asselt, Dekker, et al. 2010; cf. van Gelderen 2013). Within the Roman Catholic Church, the doctrine of the Jesuit theologians was hotly debated and was eventually condemned by a hair’s breadth. This did not happen, though, since Pope Paul V decreed in 1607 that both Jesuits and Dominicans were allowed to defend their own doctrine if only they tolerated the opposite opinion. Within the Reformed churches, however, the Synod of Dordt did produce a decision, when in 1618-1619 an international committee of dozens of delegates from all over Europe rejected the position of the Remonstrants (who followed Arminius) and their request to substantially revise the Confessio Belgica (Gootjes 2007: 133-59; cf. Goudriaan and van Lieburg 2011; Selderhuis 2015). Already in 1618, in his commentary on the Confession Festus Hommius, one of the two secretaries at the Synod, compiled a neat list of Remonstrant phrases which he judged to be at odds with the Belgic Confession (1618: 58-63). As Donald Sinnema has argued, both parties on the Synod of Dordt had a ‘different agenda’: ‘The Remonstrants wanted the extreme views of reprobation judged; the Synod’s concern was to examine the Remonstrant idea of election based on foreseen faith’ (Sinnema 1985: 447, cf. 2011). Sinnema comes to the conclusion that the Synod ultimately arrived at a ‘mild rejection’ of the Remonstrants’ view on reprobation without anathematizing it. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 32 ANDREAS J. BECK Whereas they did compile a list of errors to be rejected, it included only one explicit error related to the Remonstrant position on reprobation, or their ‘denial that God’s sheer will is the cause of preterition’, i.e. of the passing-by of the ‘others’ mentioned in article 16 of the Belgic Confession (rejected error I,8) (1985: 448, 415-35). It is important to note that to say that God’s will is the cause of preterition (the position of the Contra-Remonstrants) does not entail that God’s will also be the cause of human sin, which is the cause of God’s damnation. Sinnema rightly observed that the Synod here stood in line with Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and ‘the great Western tradition’ (1985: 448). In its Canons the Synod of Dordt indeed adopted a position on reprobation that was more moderate than the position of Calvin and even Beza. This becomes clear if one studies the judicia which give insight into an intense debate between the national and international delegates (van Asselt 2007). The Synod discussed no less than six different positions and finally adopted the ‘late medieval solution’ which distinguished between negative and positive reprobation (Sinnema 1985: 5, 136-40, 449). Thus, the divine will is seen ‘as the cause of the negative side’ (praeteritio), whereas human sin is seen ‘as the cause of the positive side’ (damnatio) (Sinnema 1985: 449; van Asselt 2007: 206). This entails that there is no positive divine act concerning human sin, whereas positive reprobation presupposes human sin. As the conclusio of the Canons of Dordt implies, election and reprobation are not parallel, not ‘eodem modo’ (Bakhuizen van den Brink 1976: 278; Schaff 1983: 3:576). The scholastic distinction between negative and affirmative reprobation goes back to the Franciscans Nicholas de Lyra (ca. 1270-1349) and, in its definitive form, to the Scotistic theologian Étienne (Stephanus) Brulefer (died ca. 1499) who also made it popular (de Lyra 1472: ad Rom. 9:17; Brulefer 1501: ad I d. 40; cf. Sinnema 1985: 32-8).3 Brulefer related the distinction directly to John Duns Scotus’s model of distinct structural moments or instances. By applying this model to predestination, Scotus could argue that divine election is not based on foreseen faith, whereas there is a relation between the divine decree and the fact that Judas finally rejected Christ and will justly be rejected in turn (see esp. Duns Scotus 1950-2013: 6.334; Vos et al. 2003: 131-164). It should be noted that Scotus’s model of structural moments works with implicative relations, not with causal relations in the modern sense of the term (te Velde, Vos, et al. 2014). Thus, if we carefully analyse the Canons of Dordt in their historical context by taking into account the scholastic background of the delegates and their debates, it becomes clear that they are not as ‘rigid’ as one might think 3 Here are the permalinks for the relevant texts of de Lyra (http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/bsb00063855/image_56) and Brulefer (http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/bsb00013717/image_345). PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Reformed Confessions and Scholasticism. Diversity and Harmony 33 at first sight and do not teach a version of praedestinatio gemina or double predestination in the sense of a strict parallelism of election and reprobation. Moreover, the Canons restrict themselves to the infralapsarian view on the object of predestination when they define in 1.7 election as ‘the unchangeable purpose of God, whereby, before the foundation of the world, he hath […] chosen, from the whole human race, which had fallen through their own fault […] into sin and destruction, a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ’ (Schaff 1983: 582; Bakhuizen van den Brink 1976: 232-3). Thus the Canons did not follow Gomarus on this point, who preferred the supralapsarian view. The Authentic Acts of the Synod report that, according to him, the canons should regard as the object of praedestination ‘not only fallen humanity (homo lapsus), but humanity as it is considered by God before the fall’. Instead, the Synod followed the infralapsarian view of S. Lubbertus, which was supported by J. Polyander, A. Thysius, and A. Walaeus (Sinnema et al. 2015: 134, cf. 315). Later Walaeus would explain in his Loci Communes (14.5) that the infralapsarian view is ‘more certain (certior) and more in agreement (convenientior) with the Word of God’, although the Synod did not exclude the supralapsarian view (Walaeus 1643: 1:327). Sure enough, as Voetius argued (1669: 602-7), the infralapsarian view is fully compatible with the supralapsarian view; it is only more restricted. What the Canons did reject is the Remonstrant position that the divine election was ‘founded upon foreseen faith (ex praevisa fide), and the obedience of faith, holiness, or any other good quality or disposition in man, as the prerequisite, cause, or condition on which it depended’ (Schaff 1983: 583; Bakhuizen van den Brink 1976: 232-3). The Synod of Dordt clearly left room for what has been called ‘lapsarian diversity’ (Fesko 2011). However, they did so by using a style of teaching that is not only catholic but also popular, thus following the modus docendi of the Palatinate delegates (Godfrey 2011). The infralapsarian view is also reflected in the Leiden Synopsis of a Purer Theology (Synopsis Purioris Theologiae, 1625), a highly influential collection of scholastic disputations that served as a dogmatic textbook at the Dutch Universities during the seventeenth century. As one of its four authors, Walaeus contributed to the Synopsis disputation 24, on divine predestination, in which he closely followed the infralapsarian definition of election of the Canons of Dordt: God ‘chooses from the whole human race that had fallen by its own fault from pristine integrity into sin and destruction a specific number of individual people’ (van den Belt et al. 2016: d. 24.4). He also explained the scholastic distinction between negative and affirmative reprobation, which as we saw, lay at the background of the Canons of Dordt, and concluded that negative reprobation or ‘passing over’ presupposes common sin, PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 34 ANDREAS J. BECK whereas affirmative reprobation or ‘“pre-damnation” in God’s foreknowledge’ presupposes particular sins (van den Belt et al. 2016: d. 24.4954; cf. Walaeus 1643: 2:250-1). This viewpoint corresponds with disputation 11 on divine providence, where A. Rivetus argued that divine providence does not destroy but rather establishes human freedom. When concurring with his creatures, God through his working ‘directly influences the action of the created being, so that one and the same action is said to proceed from the first and the second cause, inasmuch as one work, or the completed work, results from this source’ (te Velde, van Asselt, et al. 2014: 271). Evil and sins fall indirectly under divine providence in the sense that God willingly does not prevent them from happening, without thereby approving of them, in accordance with the doctrine of divine permission (providentia permittens). Every good is ascribed to God, and every evil to created causes (276-281). As these examples demonstrate, the Leiden Synopsis presented at relevant points a scholastic elaboration of the doctrinal decisions of the Synod of Dordt. A similar position can be found in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), where chapter 3.1 says of God’s eternal decree: God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established (Schaff 1983: 3:608). Accordingly, it maintains in chapter 5.2 that the immutability of the divine decree does not strictly necessitate free second causes: Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly, yet by the same providence he ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently (evenire necessario, libere, aut contingenter, pro natura causarum secundarum) (Schaff 1983: 3:612). Even though this confession does not belong to the genre of scholastic writings, it strongly reflects the scholastic training of the Westminster divines (Fesko 2014: 95-124). Thus J. B. Rogers misses the point when he tries to argue that ‘scholasticism’ did not play any significant role in English theology before the Westminster Assembly (Rogers 1967; cf. Muller 2003a: 27). Scholastic training is perhaps even more apparent in the Bremen Confession (Consensus Ministerii Bremensis, 1598—so much earlier than the Westminster Confession), which was prepared by Melanchthon’s pupil Christoph Pezel. This confession does not only include a detailed section ‘On Necessity and PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Reformed Confessions and Scholasticism. Diversity and Harmony 35 Contingeny’, but also utilizes the fine scholastic distinction between the necessity of the consequence and the necessity of the consequent to explain that Scriptures such as Matthew 26:54, saying that something must happen, should not be understood in the sense of absolute necessity (necessitate absoluta), but only of the hypothetical necessity of the consequence (necessitate consequentiae) in relation to divine ordination (Müller 1903: 755-6; cf. Rohls 1987: 71-2). Interestingly, the Bremen ministers applied such scholastic distinctions precisely in favour of a comparably moderate position on the role of the divine decree. Concluding Remarks The Reformed confessions do not belong to the genre of scholastic writing and are not primarily meant to be used in the academic setting of the classroom at universities and academies; in this sense the relationship between Reformed confessions and scholasticism is one of diversity. Moreover, we can observe quite some diversity among both Reformed confessions and scholastic theologies themselves. Yet the confessions usually have been written by theologians who had enjoyed some academic training, and this meant in early modernity: scholastic training. Moreover, the scholastic background of these theologians enabled them to place their confessional writings in the broader catholic tradition of the Christian church and to include patristic and medieval theological insights. In this sense there is no conflict but harmony between Reformed confessions and scholasticism, nor are the confessions necessarily less ‘rigid’ than scholastic theology. Indeed, studying these confessions against the background of the more scholastic writings of their authors may even help to fully see the theological nuances in their articles on doctrines such as divine predestination and providence. The confessions may be more vital for us today because they are more easily approachable and focus on what is essential for (Reformed) Christian faith, but it is important, especially for pastors and scholars, to read them in historical perspective. For this, a good understanding of Reformed scholasticism is indispensable. This alone is reason enough to study the disputations and systems of Reformed orthodoxy. In addition, it can be said without exaggeration that the Reformed scholastics have been vital within the context of their own time; they were real ‘schoolmen’, but many of them were pastors as well. They did impressive work to further develop Protestant theology given the specific needs of their age in the early modern period in general and the era of ‘confessionalization’ in particular. Since they dealt with the big questions of theology, and did so in a skillful way, drawing upon Scripture and the catholic tradition of the church by using the best tools of their time, it is still worthwhile to study their works for other reasons than purely historical ones. Of course it would be inadequate to do this in an uncritical way by PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 36 ANDREAS J. BECK merely repristinating their thought. After all, they themselves didn’t deal in such a way with the diverse theologies of the early Reformers. Yet, with the means available in their time, they often gave surprisingly helpful and sophisticated answers to questions that are still relevant today, at least for those who embrace the (Reformed) Christian confessions.4 Bibliography Anselm (1946) Cur Deus homo. In Schmitt FS (ed) S. Anselmi Cantuariensis archiepiscopi Opera Omnia. Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson, pp. 39-133. Armstrong BG (1969) Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy. Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in Seventeenth Century France. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Augustine A (1865) Opera Omnia. In Patrologia Cursus Completus (Series Latina), volume 46. Paris: Imprimerie Catholique. Bakhuizen van den Brink JN, ed (1976) De Nederlandse belijdenisgeschriften. In authentieke teksten, met inleiding en tekstvergelijkingen, second edition. Amsterdam: Ton Bolland. Bakhuizen van den Brink JN, Dankbaar WF, Kooiman WJ, et al. (1960) Documenta Reformatoria. Teksten uit de geschiedenis van kerk en theologie in de Nederlanden sedert de hervorming. Kampen: Kok. Barth K (1940) Kirchliche Dogmatik, volume II/1. Zollikon: Kirchlicher Verlag Zürich. Baschera L (2008) Tugend und Rechtfertigung: Peter Martyr Vermiglis Kommentar zur Nikomachischen Ethik im Spannungsfeld von Philosophie und Theologie [Zürcher Beiträge zur Reformationsgeschichte 26]. Zürich: TVZ Theologischer Verlag Zürich. Baschera L (2009) Aristotle and Scholasticism. In Kirby WJT, Campi E, and James FA (eds) A Companion to Peter Martyr Vermigli. Leiden/Boston: Brill, pp. 133-159. Beck AJ (2007) Gisbertus Voetius (1589-1676). Sein Theologieverständnis und seine Gotteslehre [Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte 92]. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Beck AJ (2011) ‘Expositio reverentialis’: Gisbertus Voetius’s (1589-1676) Relationship with John Calvin. Church History and Religious Culture 91(12): 121-133. Beck AJ (2012) Theology and Election in the Confessio Belgica. In Tomson PJ (ed) The Belgic Confession at 450. Papers read at the international symposium held in Brussels on November 27 and 28, 2011 at the occasion of the 450th anniversary of the Confessio Belgica [Analecta Bruxellensia]. Maastricht: Shaker Media, pp. 136-150. 4 I want to thank the editors of this issue and my colleagues Philip J. Fisk and Matthias Mangold for their valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Reformed Confessions and Scholasticism. Diversity and Harmony 37 Beck AJ (2013) Voetius on the Subject and Formal Act of Happiness—A Scholastic Exercise. In Ballor JJ, Systema DS, and Zuidema J (eds) Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism. Studies in Honor of Richard Muller on the Maturation of a Theological Tradition [History of Christian Traditions 170]. Leiden: Brill, pp. 521-532. Beck AJ (2014) Die Soteriologie des Heidelberger Katechismus. In Huijgen A, Fesko JV, and Siller A (eds) Handbuch Heidelberger Katechismus, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, pp. 246-255. Beck AJ (2016) God, Creation, and Providence in Post-Reformation Reformed Theology. In Lehner UL, Muller RA, and Roeber AG (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 1600-1800 [Oxford Handbooks]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 195-212, in print. Beza T (1559) Confession de la foy chrestienne: contenant la confirmation d’icelle, et la refutation des superstitions contraires. [Geneva]: Conrad Badius. Beza T (1560) Confessio christianae fidei, et eiusdem collatio cum papisticis haeresibus. [Geneva]: Jean Bonnefoy. Beza T (1563) Confession de la foy chrestienne, faite par Theodore de Besze, contenant la confirmation d’icelle, et la réfutation des superstitions contraires. Reveuë sur la latine, et augmentée, avec un abregé d’icelle. Geneva: Paul Patac. Beza T (1670) Quaestionum et responsionum libellus, in quo praecipua Christianae religionis capita kat᾿ evpitomh,n proponuntur. [Geneva]: J. Crispinus. Brulefer S (1501) Clarissima in q[ua]ttuor sancti Bonaventure doctoris seraphici sente[n]tiaru[m] libros Scoti subtilis secu[n]di incipiunt feliciter. [Basel]: [s.n.]. de Boer EA (2013) Guy de Brès’s ‘Le baston de la foy chrestienne’: from personal notebook to patristic anthology (1555-1565). Zwingliana 40(n.i.): 7399. de Lyra N (1472) Postilla litteralis in vetus et novum testamentum, volume 5. Rome: [s.n.]. de Rijk LM (1985) La philosophie au moyen âge. Leiden: Brill. Dekker E (1993) Rijker dan Midas: Vrijheid, genade en predestinatie in de theologie van Jacobus Arminius (1559-1609). Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum. Dekker E (1996) Was Arminius a Molinist? Sixteenth Century Journal 27(2): 337-352. den Bok NW (2001) Droeg hij onze straf? Over een veelbetekenend zwijgen in Anselmus’ verzoeningsleer. Theologia Reformata 44(1): 5-30. Donteclock R (1609) ’Tsamensprekinghe vande vertaelde theses ofte disputatien, de eene doct. Francisci Gomari, de andere doct. Iacobi Arminij, aenghaende de goddelicke predestinatie. [ s.l.]: [s.n.]. Donteclock R (1611) Een Grondich onderrecht wt Godts Heylighe Woort: Vande Predestinatie, of de Eeuwighe verkiesinghe Gods, in dese tyden zeer noodich [Na de Kopie ghedruckt]. Leiden: Heynderick L. van Haestens. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 38 ANDREAS J. BECK Duns Scotus J (1950-2013) Ioannis Duns Scoti Opera omnia. Studio et cura Commissionis Scotisticae ad fidem codicum edita, 21 volumes. Civitas Vaticana: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis. Ehrenpreis S and Lotz-Heumann U (2002) Reformation und konfessionelles Zeitalter [Kontroversen um die Geschichte]. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Fesko JV (2011) Lapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dort. In Haykin MAG and Jones M (eds) Drawn into Controversie. Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism [Reformed Historical Theology 17]. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 99-123. Fesko JV (2014) The theology of the Westminster standards. Historical context and theological insights. Wheaton, IL: Crossway. Ganoczy A (1969) La Bibliothèque de l’Académie de Calvin. Le catalogue de 1572 et ses enseignements [Ètudes de philologie et d’histoire 13]. Genf: Librairie Droz. Godfrey WR (2011) Popular and Catholic. The Modus Docendi of the Canons of Dordt. In Goudriaan A and van Lieburg FA (eds) Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618-1619) [Brill’s Series in Church History 49]. Leiden: Brill, pp. 243-260. Gootjes NH (1984) De geestelijkheid van God. Franeker: Wever. Gootjes NH (2007) The Belgic Confession. Its History and Sources. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Goris H (2001) Thomism in Zanchi’s Doctrine of God. In van Asselt WJ and Dekker E (eds) Reformation and Scholasticism. An Ecumenical enterprise [Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-Reformation Thought]. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, pp. 121-139. Goudriaan A (2006) Reformed Orthodoxy and Philosophy, 1625-1750. Gisbertus Voetius, Petrus van Mastricht, and Anthonius Driessen [Brill’s Series in Church History 26]. Leiden: Brill. Goudriaan A and van Lieburg FA, eds (2011) Revisiting the Synod of Dort (16181619) [Brill’s Series in Church History]. Leiden: Brill. Heshusius T (1560) De praesentia corporis Christi in Coena Domini contra sacramentarios. Jena: Donatus Ritzenhain. Hommius F (1618) Specimen controversiarum Belgicarum, seu, Confessio ecclesiarum Reformatarum in Belgio: cujus singulis articulis subjuncti sunt articuli discrepantes. Leiden: Ex Officina Elzeviriana. Kickel W (1967) Vernunft und Offenbarung bei Theodor Beza. Zum Problem des Verhältnisses von Theologie, Philosophie und Staat [Beiträge zur Geschichte und Lehre der Reformierten Kirche 25]. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Kienzler K (1981) Glauben und Denken bei Anselm von Canterbury. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Reformed Confessions and Scholasticism. Diversity and Harmony 39 Kittelson J (1977) Marbach vs. Zanchi. The Resolution of Controversy in Later Reformation Strasbourg. Sixteenth Century Journal 8(3): 31-44. Krüger T (2004) Empfangene Allmacht. Die Christologie Tilemann Heshusens (1527-1588) [Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte 87]. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Kunz AJ (2013) Als een prachtig boek. Nederlandse Geloofsbelijdenis artikel 2 in de context van de vroegreformatorische theologie. Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum. Kuyper HH (1899) De Post-acta of nahandelingen van de Nationale Synode van Dordrecht in 1618 en 1619 gehouden. Amsterdam: Höveker & Wormser. Mahlmann T (1997) Prädestination V: Reformation bis Neuzeit. In Müller G (ed) Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 118-156. Mallinson J (2003) Faith, Reason, and Revelation in Theodore Beza, 1519-1605. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Maresius S (1652) Foederatum Belgium orthodoxum; sive confessionis ecclesiarum Belgicarum exegesis, qua illius veritas ex Dei verbo et antiquitate catholica asseritur, et adversus oppositos errores vindicatur. Groningen: Apud Joannem Nicolaum. McIntyre J (1954) St. Anselm and his Critics. A Re-Interpretation of the Cur Deus homo. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd. Metz W (1970) Necessitas satisfactionis? Eine systematische Studie zu den Fragen 12-18 des Heidelberger Katechismus und zur Theologie des Zacharias Ursinus. Zürich: Zwingli Verlag. Müller EFK, ed (1903) Die Bekenntnisschriften der Reformierten Kirche. In authentischen Texten mit geschichtlicher Einleitung und Register. Leipzig: A. Deichert. Muller RA (1988) Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins [Studies in Historical Theology 2]. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker. Muller RA (1991) God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius. Sources and Directions of Scholastic Protestantism in the Era of Early Orthodoxy. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker. Muller RA (1999) The use and abuse of a document: Beza’s Tabula praedestinationis, the Bolsec Controversy, and the Origins of Reformed orthodoxy. In Trueman CR and Clark RS (eds) Protestant Scholasticism. Essays in Reassessment. Carlisle: Paternoster, pp. 33-61. Muller RA (2003a) After Calvin. Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition [Oxford Studies in Historical Theology]. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Muller RA (2003b) Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, 4 volumes, second edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker. Muller RA (2011) Diversity in the Reformed Tradition. A Historiographical Introduction. In Haykin MAG and Jones M (eds) Drawn into Controversie. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 40 ANDREAS J. BECK Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism [Reformed Historical Theology 17]. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 11-30. Perreiah AR (2014) Renaissance Truths. Humanism, Scholasticism and the Search for the Perfect Language. Surrey: Ashgate. Plasger G (1993) Die Not-Wendigkeit der Gerechtigkeit. Eine Interpretation zu ‘Cur Deus homo’ von Anselm von Canterbury [Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters 38]. Münster: Aschendorff. Platt JE (1982) Reformed Thought and Scholasticism. The Arguments for the Existence of God in Dutch Theology, 1575-1650 [Studies in the History of Christian Thought 29]. Leiden: Brill. Rikhof HWM, ed (1988) Over God spreken. Een tekst van Thomas van Aquino uit de Summa Theologiae (I, Q. 13) [Sleutelteksten in godsdienst en theologie 6]. Delft: Meinema. Rogers JB (1967) Scripture in the Westminster Confession. A Problem of Historical Interpretation for American Presbyterianism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Rohls J (1987) Theologie reformierter Bekenntnisschriften. Von Zürich bis Barmen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Rouwendal PL (2016) Predestination and Preaching in Genevan Theology from Calvin to Pictet. Kampen: Summum Academic Publishing, in print. Schaff P (1983) The Creeds of Christendom. With a History and Critical Notes, 3 volumes, sixth edition 1931; reprinted. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. Schilling H, ed (1986) Die reformierte Konfessionalisierung in Deutschland. Das Problem der Zweiten Reformation [Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte 195]. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. Schweizer A (1854-56) Die protestantischen Centraldogmen in ihrer Entwicklung innerhalb der reformierten Kirche, 2 volumes. Zürich: Orell, Fuessli, und Comp. Selderhuis HJ (2015) Introduction to the Synod of Dordt (1618-1619). In Sinnema DW, Moser C, and Selderhuis HJ (eds) Acta et documenta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechtanae (1618-1619), pp. xv-xxxii. Selderhuis HJ and Wriedt M, eds (2006) Bildung und Konfession. Theologenausbildung im Zeitalter der Konfessionalisierung [Spätmittelalter und Reformation, Neue Reihe 27]. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Sinnema DW (1985) The Issue of Reprobation at the Synod of Dort (161819) in the Light of the History of This Doctrine. PhD Dissertation, Toronto: University of St. Michael’s College. Sinnema DW (1999) The Distinction between Scholastic and Popular. Andreas Hyperius and Reformed Scholasticism. In Trueman CR and Clark RS (eds) Protestant Scholasticism. Essays in Reassessment. Carlisle: Paternoster, pp. 127-143. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Reformed Confessions and Scholasticism. Diversity and Harmony 41 Sinnema DW (2011) Calvin and the Canons of Dordt (1619). Church History and Religious Culture 91(1-2): 87-103. Sinnema DW, Moser C, and Selderhuis HJ, eds (2015) Acta of the Synod of Dordt [Acta et documenta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechtanae (1618-1619) 1]. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Southern RW (1990) Saint Anselm. A Portrait in a Landscape. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stanglin KD (2007) Arminius on the Assurance of Salvation. The Context, Roots, and Shape of the Leiden Debate, 1603-1609 [Brill’s Series in Church History 27]. Leiden: Brill. te Velde D (2013) The Doctrine of God in Reformed Orthodoxy, Karl Barth, and the Utrecht School. A Study in Method and Content [Studies in Reformed Theology 25]. Leiden: Brill. te Velde D, van Asselt WJ, Faber A, and den Boer W, eds (2014) Synopsis purioris theologiae = Synopsis of a purer theology. Latin Text and English Translation: Volume 1, Disputations 1-23 [Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions 187]. Leiden: Brill. te Velde D, Vos A, Veldhuis H, et al. (2014) Verkiezing en verwerping bij Johannes Duns Scotus. Een analyse van Ordinatio I 41. Kerk en Theologie 65(3): 233-248. Ursinus Z (1598) Explicationum Catecheticarum D. Zachariae Ursini Silesii absolutum opus: totiusque Theologiae purioris quasinovum corpus. Pareus D (ed). Neustadt a.d. Hardt: Harnisius. Ursinus Z (1612) Opera theologica, 3 volumes. Heidelberg: Lancelot. van Asselt WJ (2007) No Dordt Without Scholasticism. Willem Verboom on the Canons of Dordt. Church History and Religious Culture 87(2): 203-210. van Asselt WJ (2011) Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books. van Asselt WJ (2013) Reformed Orthodoxy: A Short History of Research. In Selderhuis HJ (ed) A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy [Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition]. Leiden: Brill, pp. 11-26. van Asselt WJ and Dekker E (2001) Introduction. In van Asselt WJ and Dekker E (eds) Reformation and Scholasticism. An Ecumenical enterprise [Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-Reformation Thought]. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, pp. 11-43. van Asselt WJ, Bac JM, and te Velde RT, eds (2010) Reformed Thought on Freedom. The Concept of Free Choice in the History of Early-Modern Reformed Theology [Texts and Studies in Reformation & Post-Reformation Thought]. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. van Asselt WJ, Dekker E, and Schouten MA (2010) Undisputed Freedom. A Disputation of Franciscus Gomarus (1563-1641). In van Asselt WJ, Bac M, and te Velde D (eds) Reformed Thought on Freedom. The Concept of Free Choice PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 42 ANDREAS J. BECK in the History of Early-Modern Reformed Theology [Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-Reformation Thought]. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, pp. 127-144. van den Belt H, Beck AJ, Faber A, and den Boer W, eds (2016) Synopsis purioris theologiae = Synopsis of a purer theology. Latin Text and English Translation: Volume 2, Disputations 24-42 [Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions 204]. Leiden: Brill, in print. van den Brink G (2003) Verzoening als motief voor de menswording bij Anselmus en in de Heidelbergse Catechismus. In Bok N den and Labooy G (eds) Wat God bewoog mens te worden. Gedachten over de incarnatie. Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, pp. 94-114. van den Brink G (2011) A Most Elegant Book. The Natural World in Article 2 of the Belgic Confession. Westminster Theological Journal 73(2): 273-292. van Eck J (1997) En toch beweegt Hij. Over de godsleer in de Nederlandse belijdenisgeschriften. Franeker: Van Wijnen. van Gelderen M (2013) Arminian Trouble. Calvinist Debates on Freedom. In Skinner Q and van Gelderen M (eds) Freedom and the Construction of Europe. Volume 1: Religious and Constitutional Liberties. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 21-37. van Gelderen M (2014) Hot Protestants. Predestination, the Freedom of the Will, and the Making of the Modern European Mind. In van den Brink G and Höpfl HM (eds) Calvinism and the Making of the European Mind [Studies in Reformed Theology 27]. Leiden: Brill, pp. 131-154. van Itterzon GP (1979) Franciscus Gomarus. Groningen/Castricum: Bouma’s Boekhuis. van Oppenraaij T (1906) La doctrine de la prédestination dans l’église réformée des Pays-Bas depuis l’origine jusqu’au synode national de Dordrecht en 1618 et 1619. Etude historique. Dissertationes ad gradum doctoris in Facultate Theologica consequendum. Louvain: J. van Linthout. van ’t Spijker W (1993) Bucer als Zeuge Zanchis im Straßburger Prädestinationsstreit. In Oberman HO et al. (eds) Reformiertes Erbe. Festschrift für Gottfried W. Locher zu seinem 80. Geburtstag. Zwingliana 19(2): n.p. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, pp. 327-342. van Veen MGK and Spohnholz J (2014) Calvinists vs. Libertines. A New Look at Religious Exile and the Origins of the ‘Dutch’ Tolerance. In van den Brink G and Höpfl HM (eds) Calvinism and the Making of the European Mind [Studies in Reformed Theology 27]. Leiden: Brill, pp. 76-99. Voetius G (1648) Selectae disputationes theologicae, volume 1. Utrecht: Joannes à Waesberge. Voetius G (1663) Politica ecclesiastica. Amsterdam: Joannes à Waesberge. Voetius G (1669) Selectae disputationes, volume 5. Utrecht: Ant. Smytegelt. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Reformed Confessions and Scholasticism. Diversity and Harmony 43 Vos A (2013) Reformed Orthodoxy in the Netherlands. In Selderhuis HJ (ed) A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy [Brill’s Companions to the Christian tradition]. Leiden: Brill, pp. 121-176. Vos A, Veldhuis H, Dekker E, et al., eds (2003) Duns Scotus on Divine Love. Texts and Commentary on Goodness and Freedom, God, and Humans. Aldershot: Ashgate. Wagner-Peterson B (2013) Doctrina schola vitae. Zacharias Ursinus (1534-1583) als Schriftausleger [Refo500 Academic Studies]. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Walaeus A (1643) Opera omnia, 2 volumes. Leiden: Franciscus Hackius. Wiskerke JR (1978) De Geestelijkheid van God. In De strijd om de sleutel der kennis: Een bundel opstellen over theologie en filosofie. Groningen: De Vuurbaak, pp. 93-161. Zanchi G (1572) De tribus Elohim, aeterno Patre, Filio, et Spiritu Sancto, uno eodemque Iehova. [s.l.]: [s.n]. Zanchi G (1577) De natura Dei seu De divinis attributis, libri V. Heidelberg: [Jacobus Mylius]. Zanchi G (1619) Omnia opera theologica, volume 2. Geneva: Samuel Crispin. Zanchi G (2007) De religione Christiana fides—Confession of Christian religion, 2 volumes [Baschera L and Moser C (eds), Studies in the History of Christian Traditions 135]. Leiden: Brill. Zuidema J (2008) Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499-1562) and the Outward Instruments of Divine Grace [Reformed Historical Theology 4]. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Perichoresis Volume 14. Issue 3 (2016): 45-59 DOI: 10.1515/perc-2016-0015 REFORMED ORTHODOXY IN PURITANISM RANDALL J. PEDERSON* Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia ABSTRACT. This paper explores the relationship between early modern English Puritanism and Reformed orthodoxy through a fresh examination of three ministers who have been described as Puritans: John Owen, Richard Baxter, and John Goodwin. By assessing their attitudes toward the Bible and specifically the doctrine of justification, this paper uncovers an evolving consensus of orthodox thought in the period. Their attitudes and approaches to doctrine and church tradition led to diverse interpretations and directions in the codification of their religion. Their theological interpretations reflect an inherent pattern of diversity within English Puritanism, especially in its attitudes towards the formation of orthodoxy. The relation of Reformed orthodoxy to Puritanism, then, is more complex than older modes of scholarship have allowed. For the Puritan mainstream, Reformed orthodoxy served as a theological compass and thermostat that tested ideas and was to govern both the direction and temperament of Reformed doctrine. For those outside the pale, such orthodoxy and their alleged disloyalty to the Bible and Reformed church tradition was vehemently contested. KEY WORDS: Puritanism, Reformed orthodoxy, Bible, doctrine of justification, theology Introduction In the last few decades there has been a transformation in understanding the nature and development of Reformed orthodoxy (Selderhuis 2013).1 While earlier studies had described the Reformation as a period of robust and vi- * 1 RANDALL J. PEDERSON (PhD 2013, Leiden University) is managing editor of the Westminster Theological Journal, published by Westminter Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America. Email: rpederson@wts.edu. While the term ‘Reformed orthodoxy’ refers to the codification of the Reformed religion following the Reformation from roughly 1550-1750, there are scholars who question its usefulness since ‘orthodoxy and its opposites were very much in the eye of the beholder’. It is beyond the scope of this paper to delve into this issue, but the term Reformed orthodoxy does sufficiently express mainstream Reformed consensus in the age of confessions and is useful for understanding how the early modern Reformed defined and reinforced their spiritual identities. But with that said, by using the term I do not mean to suggest that there was absolute uniformity in doctrine and practice; indeed, as we shall see, even on the most basic and fundamental of Protestant doctrines there was disagreement. © EMANUEL UNIVERSITY of ORADEA PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 46 RANDALL J. PEDERSON brant biblical exegesis, and the post-Reformation as one of decline into rationalism, the pioneering work of Richard Muller and those of his ‘school’ have initiated a rather dramatic turnaround in showing that the heirs of the Reformation were no less biblically robust in their exegesis, or pious in their lives, than those who went before them (Muller 2003; Muller 2012; Selderhuis 2013; Ballor 2013). Post-reformational advancements of precision in theology are now seen as an elaboration and development of the Protestant ideal, rather than as a deviance from it (Muller 2003; Van Asselt 2013; Denlinger 2014; Manetsch 2012: 241-5). Studies of this progression toward a thoroughly refined and scholastic orthodoxy—the codification of the Reformed faith in its creeds, symbols, and many theology manuals—have shed insight into Reformed sources and preoccupations in the period to such an extent that one can readily see a diverse wellspring of theological formation and cross-fertilization.2 It is, for instance, now established that Calvin was not the ‘fountainhead’ of Reformed religion, as though he were the sole architect of what came to be known as ‘Calvinism’, but rather was but one of many second-generation reformist voices singing to a Reformed tune (Fesko 2012: 26, 126-9).3 Moreover, the continental influence of the Reformation in Britain, and the formation and reception of orthodox thought in England, would not have been possible without the printing press, exile, and freedom to travel to the continent (Fudge 2007: 107ff; Ha 2011). The English Puritan chorus in the Post-Reformation period, who generally espoused what we might call ‘British Reformed orthodoxy’, was equally robust and diverse (Muller 2011: 11-30). Indeed, many voices other than Calvin had effectively promoted Reformed virtues across England. This diversity of germination and proliferation of ideas, made possible by a burgeoning English learned book trade and promotion of standard divines (Downame 1629; Mather 1726), was doubtless responsible for the ‘shifting patterns of Reformed tradition’ we see in the period, which invariably resulted in competing stances on doctrine and practice, even though, by and large, there was great harmony in the fundamentals of religion and religious practice (Trueman 2013: 263).4 2 3 4 An example of the scholastic codification of the Reformed faith, with its heavy reliance on biblical exegesis, can be seen in Leiden University’s Synopsis Purioris Theologiae (16201624), originally a series of public disputations by Leiden’s theology faculty (Johannes Polyander, Andreas Rivetus, Antonius Walaeus, Antonius Thysius) that sought to clarify important doctrinal matters. The disputations are now being republished in their original Latin with English translation (Te Velde 2015). Though it is evident that the Reformed tradition was an eclectic one, some scholars still seem to perpetuate the myth that Calvin was ‘standing at the fountain-head of the Reformed tradition’, a standing Calvin himself denied (e.g. Gibson 2011; Helm 2014). I am indebted to Emidio Campi for the phrase ‘shifting patterns of Reformed tradition’. Though he uses it within a continental context, it is equally applicable to the English Reformed (Campi 2014). PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Reformed Orthodoxy in Puritanism 47 Within current scholarship, however, there is dissensus on the place of Reformed orthodoxy within Puritanism. Historically, attitudes have centered on a monolithic Puritanism that was synonymous with orthodox thought. Thus, the English Puritan was by definition ‘orthodox’, a belief promulgated by Perry Miller that still pervades certain sectors of scholarship (Miller 1953; Watts 1985). However, revisionists have questioned this view as naïve, simplistic, and untenable given the evidence, and have instead insisted that Puritanism should not be defined by its ‘mind’ or orthodoxy, but by its impulse for spiritual reform, or ‘in terms of a common outlook, ethos or culture’ (Knight 1994; Winship 2002: 248; Trueman 2012: xii; Marshall 2012: 147). But, as Buchanan Sharp has pointed out, it is impractical to understand Puritanism solely, or even chiefly, in terms of its ‘reformation of manners’, because other spiritual reformists in the period had equally engaged in their own pursuit of moral purism (Sharp 1993: 257-8). Indeed, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish the precisianism and vigor of a Lancelot Andrewes from his Puritan counterparts, even though there were sharp disagreements between them on ceremonial conformity (Lake 1991; McCullough 2005: 332). The better path forward, as I will attempt to show in this paper, is to see Puritanism as a conglomerate of doctrine and manners that had a mainline expression, centered on a Reformed orthodox view of the Bible, its interpretation, and application to life, but which also, signaling its heterogeneity, embraced various doctrinal malcontents, who emerged from that tradition and challenged it, but who were nonetheless influenced and changed by it. Thus, I propose that we might distinguish between mainline Puritans who shared the doctrinal standards of Reformed orthodoxy and more marginal Puritans who deviated from (some of) these standards but nevertheless continued to be part of the Puritan movement because of their shared spirituality. In order to understand the relationship between Reformed orthodoxy and Puritanism, and not fall into the error of monolithicism, 5 this paper will briefly examine three diverse ‘Puritans’, their attitudes toward the Bible and their understanding of the ‘pillar’ of Protestant religion, the doctrine of justification. It will first examine John Owen, a theologian who typifies a rigorous and eclectic Reformed orthodoxy; it will then, second, assess Richard Baxter, a controversial divine and pedlar of Puritan divinity, whose later pub- 5 G. R. Elton once said that the aim of the student of history is ‘to know all the evidence’ that could pertain to one’s inquiry (Elton 2002: 60). While it is impossible to assess and give diligence to everything, one ought to be aware of historical assumptions that exclude certain conclusions before the historical evidence is duly considered, such as, for the purposes of this paper, the presumption of a rigid orthodoxy in the seventeenth century. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 48 RANDALL J. PEDERSON lishers redacted what they saw as his doctrinal infelicities. Third, it will consider the deviations of John Goodwin, a Puritan of a different sort; 6 and, in conclusion, it will propose seeing Reformed orthodoxy as a refining and purifying process of the Puritan majority, which sought unity in an age of confessions, but did not necessarily expect uniformity; and finally it will briefly suggest a constructive path moving forward in this field of research. We will now turn to John Owen, who has been described as one of the ‘over-orthodox doctors’ of Puritanism (Burton 2013: 31). 7 John Owen (1616-1683) Given his extensive corpus and status as a monolith of Reformed orthodoxy, there has been a resurgence of interest in John Owen in recent years, with monographs exploring facets of his thought and piety (Gribben 2016; Leslie 2015; McGraw 2014; Cleveland 2013; Kapic 2013; Trueman 2007). Owen had a formative influence on the course of mid-century Puritanism by refuting what he saw as errors in theology, having learned the practice of disputation while a student at Oxford University—but he was careful to distinguish ‘fundamentals’ from ‘non-fundamentals’ (Bearman 2010: 505; Coffey 2006: 129). Through his rigorous affective piety and theological precision, Owen, perhaps more than any other Puritan, epitomizes mainstream Reformed belief, practice, and dogmatics in the seventeenth century, and serves as an excellent reference for comparison. Thus, we will briefly assess Owen’s attitude towards the Bible and its interpretation, examine his understanding of the doctrine of justification as a forensic act, and make some observatory remarks on how a mainstream Puritan viewed orthodoxy on a foundational doctrine.8 One of the hallmark features of Owen’s thought is his dislike of abstruse philosophical terminology and reliance on biblical exegesis: 6 7 8 I do not here challenge the assumption that Goodwin was a Puritan. If we understand Puritanism to be a conglomerate of ideas centered around a pietistic and reforming culture—a Puritan Reformation, if you will—then it is not inconceivable that those at the fringes might look different (and, in some cases, drastically different) from those at the epicenter, but still remain part of it. The moniker is from Richard Baxter’s autobiography, Reliquiae Baxterianae (1696), p. 199, in which he complains about Owen adding terminology to ‘obviate the Heresies and Errours of the Divines’. Baxter elsewhere criticizes the zeal of the overly orthodox as ‘devilish’ and ‘satantical’ while upholding orthodoxy himself (Baxter 1830: 14.169). I fully realize that the use of ‘mainstream Puritan’ is contested in scholarship. On the one hand, scholars reason that Puritanism was so diverse and multifaceted that there could be no ‘mainstream’. On the other, and more accurate in my view, are those who insist that from its earliest roots there was a normative orthodoxy and practice that grew over time, and reached full expression and codification at the Westminster Assembly, but which also gave rise to all sorts of deviations during the English Revolution. Nonetheless, the term is useful to describe those who represented the mainline or orthodox consensus. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Reformed Orthodoxy in Puritanism 49 I had rather, indeed, insist on the propriety of words in the originals, their use in the law and amongst men, so all be regulated by the analogy of faith, than square the things of God to the terms and rules of art and philosophy… Let any man living express any doctrine of the gospel whatever in the exactest manner, with artificial, philosophical terms, and I will undertake to show that in many things the truth is wrested and fettered thereby…’ (Owen 1850-55: 12.610-11). In fact, for Owen, biblical truth plainly stated was of primary importance for doctrine and life. He expressed his thoughts on proper exegesis in his Synesis Pneumatikē. The Causes, Ways, and Means of Understanding the Mind of God (1678), a popular text that argues for the foundational role of Scripture and the ability of all believers to interpret it aright. Here Owen advocates for a ‘two springs’ approach to the Bible: the testimony of the church and the testimony of the Holy Spirit. While Owen sees merit to the pursuit of scholarly disciplines, such as the use of original languages and familiarity with the ancient world (a humanist approach), and even expresses his own indebtedness to church tradition, such aids are ‘ancillary’ to the Bible because they do not always evince consensus or universal agreement (Amos 2015: 116-23; Muller 2000; Owen 1678; Tweeddale 2011: 56-7). The only source of final authority, then, is the Bible, and the only reliable way to find sound doctrine is through a vigorous exegesis of the biblical text that is guided by the ‘Spirit of Truth’, through whose operations and illumination a believer is guided to the correct interpretation (Owen 1678). Owen does not state that the Bible is clear in all places (some passages of Paul are notoriously difficult), but that it is perspicuous in matters of faith and manners for every believer (Owen 1678: 5; Gordis 2003: 18-23). There is some irony to the fact that the foremost Protestant doctrine, the doctrine of justification by faith, was so hotly contested among the ‘orthodox’ in the English Church. For instance, Owen said the doctrine was ‘of the highest importance to the Souls of men’, while acknowledging divisions among the orthodox over it (Owen 1677). Though there was an established Protestant consensus early on, at least in terms of the remission of sins, there were varieties of opinion in how and when this remission was applied to a sinner. Was it from eternity? Was it before faith? Was it conditional? Did it happen at the moment of conversion? On what grounds was one justified? Owen’s mature view of the doctrine, The Doctrine of Justification by Faith (1677), birthed from his own careful linguistic and exegetical study of the Bible, and forged in his earlier debates with Roman Catholics, Socinians, and Arminians, represents a forensic view that was shared by most of the Reformed orthodox theologians (Trueman 2007: 101-22). Here Owen argues for a single act of unconditional justification in contradistinction of a double act as espoused by Roman Catholics (Leslie 2015: 112; Trueman 2007). The PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 50 RANDALL J. PEDERSON process is immediate and unconditional, rather than contingent upon continued obedience and a lifelong process of being justified. Owen also sees the imputation of Christ’s active and passive righteousness as the formal cause of justification before God, not one’s faith (Owen 1677: ch. 7, 9). He sees sanctification as the fruit of justification, and argues that once received, justification cannot be lost (Owen 1677: 201-4, 210-11). Further, Owen rejects the doctrine of justification from eternity, as well as the related view that justification takes place before someone has come to faith. In this, he distances himself from the views of William Twisse, William Pemble, and William Eyre. There is some question whether the doctrine of justification from eternity was outside the pale of Reformed orthodoxy. While most Reformed confessions make no pronouncement on it, and many prominent divines held to this view, even though it was associated with antinomism, the Westminster Assembly did conclude as a matter of orthodoxy that believers justified at the moment of their conversion. In fact, Chad van Dixhoorn has suggested that antinomism was a greater and more immediate fear to the Assembly than Catholicism (Van Dixhoorn 2009). Owen’s belief in the primacy of the Bible, and his optimism for its proper interpretation for faith and morals, is typical of the Protestant and Puritan mind. His treatment of the doctrine of justification as a forensic act of imputation is a standard statement of Reformed orthodoxy. Though consensus on the doctrine was neither universal (especially in dialogue with those outside orthodox circles), nor easy to come by, except, perhaps, for a basic assumption that saw justification as a divine act that remitted sins, mainline Puritans fought for a standard use of words and expressions, and thus meaning, that guarded against doctrinal error and misunderstanding. They sought to balance objective truth with subjective experience; thus the doctrine of justification was a consoling doctrine that was used for pedagogical and pastoral purposes. But the doctrine was also frequently discussed in polemical discourses: the specter of antinomism, synergism, and socinianism was always in the background of Reformed Orthodox discussions of it, as seen in the so-called ‘free grace’ controversy of the 1630-1640s (Winship 2002). In contrast to the forensic view defended and clarified by Owen is that of Richard Baxter, and to him we will now turn. Richard Baxter (1615-1691) Baxter was an English pastor, theologian, poet, and polemicist, best known for his writings on heaven and the Christian life. Given that his popularity rests almost entirely on his practical writings, which were republished in the nineteenth century, the portrait of Richard Baxter portrayed in the literature is often distorted and does not give consideration to the overall tenor of his work and theology; indeed, as Cooper reminds us, Baxter could be ‘rude, PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Reformed Orthodoxy in Puritanism 51 arrogant, tactless, sharp, and offensive’; though desirous of true peace among the brethren, ‘his methods invariably extended controversy and provoked further division and argument, from the very beginning to the very end’ (Cooper 2012: 55-6). Though the literature on Baxter is immense, no one, to my knowledge, has ever attempted to discredit Baxter as ‘Puritan’. Largely self-educated (Baxter 1696: 1.85), Baxter has often been referred to as the father or precursor of the neonomian strain within Puritanism, one that saw the gospel as a ‘new law’ that ought to be obeyed by faith and repentance (Daniel 1997: 177). Lim even goes so far as to call Baxter the ‘father of Unitarianism’, even though Baxter held to a classically orthodox view of the Trinity (Lim 2012: 247). Regardless, Baxter’s legal emphasis in English theology was in response to his exposure to antinomism during the English Civil Wars (Cooper 2001). For much of his life, Baxter was caught in controversy over his assertion that the believer contributed evangelical righteousness to his redemption (Burton 2012: 337). Here we will comment on Baxter’s view of the Bible, his understanding of the doctrine of justification by faith, and conclude with a few remarks on his status as an orthodox divine. For Baxter, only that which is plainly taught in Scripture should be required of Christians. Though knowledge of the Bible may vary, clergy should pursue a thorough knowledge of doctrine and tradition, with church unity centered on the fundamentals of Christian religion as expressed in the Apostle’s Creed and Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (Baxter 1830: 4.687-9; Baxter 1653: 3; Edwards 2009: 93). As with Owen, Baxter finds knowledge of the original languages, church tradition, and scholastic methodology useful for interpreting Scripture; in fact, he himself had acquired an impressive library of medieval exegetical and theological titles, which he frequently cites in his writings (Trueman 2011: 60). Whatever learning one obtained, either through classical education or through self-study, it was the Bible that should have the pre-eminence (Baxter 1830: 1.57). Controversy over Baxter’s doctrine of justification, representing one of the ‘bitter battles among the Reformed’, arose when Baxter published his Aphorismes of Justification in 1649, a work he penned primarily for the edification of his church at Kidderminster (Muller 2003: 1.76; Muller 1980: 30834). It is possible that the humility with which Baxter published his work, seeking the approval of other divines, helped to mitigate the heat of the controversy (Baxter wrote, ‘If you approve, I shall be the more conformed… If you disallow… I shall suspect, and search again’ [Baxter 1655]), but regardless of his intent or irenicism, the result was an intellectual rupture among the Reformed orthodox (Muller 2003: 1.76). PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 52 RANDALL J. PEDERSON In contrast to Owen’s forensic doctrine of double imputation, where Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the sinner and the sinner’s unrighteousness to Christ, Baxter argues for a Grotian view that differs markedly in that it denies the strict imputation of Christ’s righteousness and instead holds that believers must have their own inherent ‘evangelical righteousness’ that fulfills the Covenant of Grace through faith and repentance and thus ‘merits’ its benefits (Baxter 1655: 62-75). His rejection of the orthodox view drew immediate ire and tarnished his reputation into subsequent centuries, causing him to be a bête noire on the doctrine (Boersma 1993). Baxter’s views were birthed in what he saw as an antinomian crisis in the English Church. His attitude toward the Bible as an infallible rule of doctrine and life was such that he searched for and found relief from the specter of antinomism in the biblical text itself. As a precisianist, Baxter feared that antinomian doctrine would lead to immorality and social disorder, but he went further in his interpretation of justification than other Reformed orthodox divines by pressing the importance of faith and repentance as meritorious ‘works’. In this, he appears to have more in common with the Arminian ideas circulating in his day than with that of the Reformed. In fact, Baxter has often been called ‘Arminian’ in his thinking (Packer 2003; Lamont 1979; Neve 1931: 153), but has nonetheless retained his status as a Reformed Orthodox divine (Ballor 2013). We will now turn to John Goodwin, a minister who has been described as a Puritan. By sketching Goodwin, we will better see what distinguishes the Reformed Orthodox Puritan from the unorthodox. John Goodwin (1594-1665) While it is debated whether Goodwin should be classified as ‘Puritan’, with some scholars excluding him from the Puritan fold, and others arguing that he had merely modified Puritanism (Webster 1987: 39-58; Webster 1997: 147), here, as with Owen and Baxter, we will show from Goodwin’s view of the Bible, use of church tradition, and beliefs concerning the doctrine of justification that though he wasn’t a mainline Puritan, he can still be seen as part of the wider Puritan movement; we will then briefly comment on what distinguishes him from the Reformed Orthodox, and then conclude the paper. Goodwin, an independent divine and vicar of a prominent Puritan parish in London, St. Stephens, Coleman Street, with connections among the socalled ‘disaffected’ (Coffey 2006: 10) was educated at Christ’s College, Cambridge, in the humanist and scholastic traditions, and began his ministry with little fanfare, but soon after came under attack for various positions that were deemed controversial or unorthodox (Coffey 2006: 13-43; Parnham 2014). Because of his intellectual rigor he has been described as a critic of ‘intellec- PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Reformed Orthodoxy in Puritanism 53 tual inertia’. A prolific author, Goodwin’s writings evince a divine who, similar to Owen and Baxter, was well-versed in the original languages, church tradition (Goodwin interacted with the leading Protestant commentaries of his day), Aristotelian logic, and the methods of scholasticism (Coffey 2006: 34). Goodwin’s views of the Bible, which he sees as the sole authoritative text in his writings, are laid out, in part, in his book, The Divine Authority of the Scriptures Asserted (1645). Here Goodwin refutes what he calls the ‘antiscripturalism’ of his age, by which he means the constant bickering among the ‘godly’ over various interpretations of the biblical text. Originating as a series of sermons, Divine Authority was an attempt to restore confidence in the Bible against questions about its reliability, perspicuity, and authority. Divine Authority upholds the Bible as the providentially persevered message of Jesus Christ, and as the ‘foundation of Christian religion’, from which doctrine, orthodoxy, the way of salvation flow (Goodwin 1645: 15, 17-22). As Coffey points out, Divine Authority was ‘tailored to appeal to committed (if troubled) Christians’, who opted for a more traditional approach to the Word, one in which laity ‘listened respectfully as the Word was expounded by orthodox and learned divines’ (Coffey 2006: 154). Thus, in his doctrine of Scripture, Goodwin does not seem to deviate from the Reformed orthodox and adopts a traditionally Protestant position. Goodwin’s Treatise of Justification (1642), which we will now turn to, further evinces his skill in biblical exegesis, humanism, and scholasticism. In fact, the book rests on his exegesis of the Bible, especially the Greek New Testament. Here Goodwin interacts with Ames, Calvin, Vermigli, Bucer, Paraeus, Musculus, Junius, Aainsworth, and Grotius (Coffey 2006: 31). Goodwin’s skill as a humanist and wit with words was so well known that even John Owen felt he had to acknowledge it (Owen 1850-53: 11.14). Goodwin’s view of the doctrine of justification departs from Reformed orthodoxy by rejecting the doctrine of Christ’s double imputation. Here he criticizes other divines for adhering to ‘those misprisions and mistakes of our first Reformers’, and teaching them ‘for Doctrines and Orthodox truths… As if it were not lawful to think that there may be more light in the air when the sun is risen in his might upon the earth, then there was at the first dawning and breaking of day’ (Goodwin 1642). Goodwin argues that sinners are declared righteous on account of Christ’s sacrifice as a sin-offering, but without the imputation of Christ’s merits; here he claims support from various Reformed divines (Goodwin 1642: 83). While Baxter also rejects the orthodox view of imputation, Goodwin went further by not only promoting a form of universal redemption, where Christ is said to have died for all equally (not merely sufficiently), but by also opening up the possibility that a justified saint PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 54 RANDALL J. PEDERSON could lose his or her salvation (Goodwin 1651), a view condemned by the Reformed Orthodox (Owen 1654; Quantin 2009: 258-60). It was Goodwin’s active promotion of ‘intellectual radicalism’ and his Arminian views on justification and perseverance that pushed him beyond the pale of Reformed orthodoxy, and thus mainline Puritanism, though not necessarily from Puritanism itself. Indeed, Goodwin was deeply influenced by a wide range of reading from continentally Reformed sources to the writings of Dutch Arminians and Italian humanist reformers. Among the Arminians, he showed particular fondness for Hugo Grotius; and though he rarely quoted Arminian works directly, he was nonetheless acquainted with them, even admitting that he had read Arminius and consulted the works of Arminius’s followers, where he found little difference between Arminius and ‘the judgments and expressions of some Reformed churches’, but profound difference with Arminius’s followers (Goodwin 1647: 104; Coffey 2006: 34; More 1982: 50-70; Foster 1923: 1-37). Goodwin’s theological influences, interpretations, and synergistic impulses pushed him into directions the Reformed orthodoxy vehemently opposed. Though he retained much of Puritanism’s ethos and culture, he abandoned its confession; though a Puritan, he was a Puritan of a different sort. Conclusion While historical attitudes on the relation between Reformed orthodoxy and Puritanism have varied, the three ministers whose beliefs we have sketched show that the relation is neither synonymous nor mutually exclusive. All three shared a reverence for the Bible as ‘that grand standard and test’ for orthodoxy; all were skilled exegetes, and all honored the church’s doctrinal tradition. But they came to diverse interpretations on the minutiae of the most fundamental Protestant doctrine. It was their own personal exegesis, their varied use of church tradition (whether patristic, medieval, continentally Reformed, or Remonstrant), and their interpretations of received texts that pushed them into the direction of Reformed orthodoxy or away from it. For the mainstream Puritan, Reformed orthodoxy was a way to refine doctrine and come to some sort of standard belief and test whereby others were judged. However, it is evident that conceptions of a ‘rigid’ orthodoxy, in which doctrinal deviations or variations were not allowed, ought to be rejected in favor of a view in which Reformed orthodoxy was to some extent malleable; indeed, that Baxter could dissent and make evangelical righteousness a condition for justification and still be counted among the orthodox ‘godly’ shows that there was more consideration given to a divine’s overall tenor than just doctrinal exactness or compliance with the prevailing consen- PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Reformed Orthodoxy in Puritanism 55 sus. But it is also true that one could, and in the case of Goodwin did, transgress orthodox sentiment to such as extent that he could no longer be considered Reformed or Reformed Orthodox, but still be a ‘Puritan’. While questions remain as to how Arminianism and Puritanism could coexist, much less coalesce, in Goodwin, future studies of this relation should prove beneficial in understanding the ethos and theological culture of Puritanism in its mainstream and more radical expressions. The unity in diversity that can be seen at the center becomes blurred at the edges. Minimally, the examples of Owen, Baxter, and Goodwin show that Reformed orthodoxy in Puritanism is much more complex than earlier studies, especially parochial ones, have allowed. Bibliography Amos NS (2015) Bucer, Ephesians, and Biblical Humanism. The Exegete as Theologian. New York, NY: Springer. Ballor JJ (2013) The Shape of Reformed Orthodoxy in the Seventeenth Century. The Soteriological Debate Between George Kendall and Richard Baxter. In Ballor J, Sytsma D, and Zuidema J (eds) Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism. Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of a Theological Tradition. Leiden: Brill. Ballor JJ, Sytsma D, Zuidema J (2013) Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism. Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of a Theological Tradition. Leiden: Brill. Baxter R (1655) Aphorismes of Justification. London. Baxter R (1696) Reliquiae Baxterianae. London. Baxter R (1830) The Practical Works of the Rev Richard Baxter. London: James Duncan. Boersma H (1993) A Hot Peppercorn. Richard Baxter’s Doctrine of Justification in Its Seventeenth-Century Context of Controversy. Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum. Burgess G et al (2007) English Radicalism, 1550-1850. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burton SJG (2012) The Hallowing of Logic. The Trinitarian Method of Richard Baxter’s Methodus Theologiae. Leiden: Brill. Campi E (2014) Shifting Patterns of Reformed Tradition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Capp BS (2012) England’s Culture Wars. Puritan Reformation and Its Enemies in the Interregnum, 1649-1660. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cleveland C (2013). Thomism in John Owen. Aldershot: Ashgate. Coffey J (2006) John Goodwin and the Puritan Revolution: Religion and Intellectual Change in Seventeenth-Century Puritanism. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 56 RANDALL J. PEDERSON Coffey J (2006) A Ticklish Business. Defining Heresy and Orthodoxy in the Puritan Revolution. In Loewenstein D and Marshall J (eds) Heresy, Literature, and Politics in Early Modern English Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cooper T (2012) Richard Baxter. In Sullivan GA and Stewart A (eds) The Encyclopedia of English Renaissance Literature. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Cooper T (2001) Fear and Polemic in Seventeenth-Century England. Richard Baxter and Antinomianism. Aldershot: Ashgate. Daniel C (1997) John Gill and Calvinistic Antinomianism. In Haykin MAG (ed) The Life of John Gill (1697-1771). A Tercentennial Appreciation. Leiden: Brill. Denlinger AC (2014) Reformed Orthodoxy in Scotland. Essays on Scottish Theology, 1560-1775. New York: Bloomsbury. Downame J (1629) A Guide to Godliness, or a Treatise of the Christian Life. London. Edwards RM (2009) Scriptural Perspicuity in the Early Modern English Reformation in Historical Theology. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Elton GR (2002) The Practice of History, second edition. Oxford: Blackwell. Fesko JV (2012) Beyond Calvin. Union with Christ and Justification in Early Modern Reformed Theology, 1570-1700. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Foster HD (1923) Liberal Calvinism. The Remonstrants at the Synod of Dort in 1618. Harvard Theological Review 16(1): 1-37. Fudge JD (2007) Commerce and Print in the Early Reformation. Leiden: Brill. Gibson D (2011) Reading the Decree. Exegesis, Election, and Christology in Calvin and Barth. New York: Bloomsbury. Goodwin J (1642) Imputatio Fidei. Or, The Doctrine of Justification. London. Goodwin J (1645) The Divine Authority of the Scriptures. London. Goodwin J (1647) Apolnirōsis Apolnirōseōs. Redemption Redeemed. London. Goodwin J (1647) Hagiomastix. London. Gordis LM (2003) Opening Scripture. Bible Reading and Interpretive Authority in Puritan New England. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Gribben C (2016) John Owen and English Puritanism. Experiences of Defeat. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ha P, Collinson P (2011) The Reception of Continental Reformation in Britain. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Haykin M (1997) The Life of John Gill (1697-1771). A Tercentennial Appreciation. Leiden: Brill. Haykin M, Jones M (2011) Drawn into Controversie. Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates within British Puritanism. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Helm P (2014) Faith, Form, and Fashion. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books. Jackson T (1872) The Life of John Goodwin. London. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Reformed Orthodoxy in Puritanism 57 Kapic KM, Jones M (2012) The Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen’s Theology. Aldershot: Ashgate. Knight J (1994) Orthodoxies in Massachusetts. Rereading American Puritanism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lake P (1991) Lancelot Andrewes, John Buckeridge, and avant-garde conformity at the court of James I. In Peck LL (ed) The Mental World of the Jacobean Court. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lamont W (1979) Richard Baxter and the Millennium. Protestant Imperialism and the English Revolution. Totowa: Rowman & Littlefield. Leslie AM (2015) The Light of Grace. John Owen on the Authority of Scripture and Christian Faith. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Lim PCH (2012) Mystery Unveiled. The Crisis of the Trinity in Early Modern England. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Loewenstein D, Marshall P (2006) Heresy, Literature, and Politics in Early Modern English Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Manetsch SM (2012) Calvin’s Company of Pastors: Pastoral Care and the Emerging Reformed Church, 1536-1609. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Marshall P (2012) Reformation England, 1480-1642, second edition. London: Bloomsbury. Mather C (1726) Manuductio ad Ministerium. Boston. McCullough P (2005) Lancelot Andrewes. Selected Sermons and Lectures. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. McCullough P, Adlington H, Rhatigan H (2011) The Oxford Handbook of the Early Modern Sermon. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. McGraw RM (2014) A Heavenly Directory. Trinitarian Piety, Public Worship, and a Reassessment of John Owen’s Theology. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Miller P (1953) The New England Mind. From Colony to Province. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. More E (1982) John Goodwin and the Origins of the New Arminianism. Journal of British Studies 22(1): 50-70. Muller RA (1980) Covenant and Conscience in English Reformed Theology. Three Variations on a 17th Century Theme. Westminster Theological Journal 42(2): 308-34. Muller RA (2003) After Calvin. Studies in the Development of a Reformed Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Muller R (2003) Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Muller R (2011) Diversity in the Reformed Tradition. In Haykin MAG and Jones M (eds) Drawn into Controversie. Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates within British Puritanism. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 58 RANDALL J. PEDERSON Muller RA (2012) Calvin and the Reformed Tradition. On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Muller RA, Thompson JL (2000) Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Neve JL (1931) Arminianism in its influence upon England. Bibliotheca Sacra 88. Owen J (1654) The Doctrine of the Saints Perseverance Explained and Confirmed. Oxford. Owen J (1677) The Doctrine of Justification by Faith. London. Owen J (1678) Synesis Pneumatikē. The Causes, Ways, and Means of Understanding the Mind of God. London. Owen J (1850-53) The Works of John Owen, edited by W. H. Goold. London: Johnstone & Hunter. Packer JI (2003) The Redemption and Restoration of Man in the Thought of Richard Baxter: A Study in Puritan Theology. Vancouver: Regent College. Parnham D (2014). Heretics Within. Anthony Wotton, John Goodwin, and the Orthodox Divines. Eastbourne: Sussex Academic Press. Peck LL (1991) The Mental World of the Jacobean Court. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pederson R (2014) Unity in Diversity. English Puritans and the Puritan Reformation, 1603-1689. Leiden: Brill. Quantin JL (2009) The Church of England and Christian Antiquity. The Construction of Confessional Identity in the 17th Century. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Richardson RC (1993) Town and Countryside in the English Revolution. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Selderhuis HJ (2013) A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy. Leiden: Brill. Sharp B (1993) Rural Discontents and the English Revolution. In Richardson RC (ed) Town and Countryside in the English Revolution. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Te Velde D (2015) Synopsis Purioris Theologiae, volume 1. Leiden: Brill. Traill R (1692) A Vindication of the Protestant Doctrine Concerning Justification. London. Trueman CR (2007) John Owen. Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man. Aldershot: Ashgate. Trueman CR (2011) Preachers and Medieval and Renaissance Commentary. In McCullough P, Adlington H, Rhatigan E (eds) The Oxford Handbook of the Early Modern Sermon. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Trueman CR (2012) Preface. In Kapic KM and Jones M (eds) The Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen. Aldershot: Ashgate. Trueman CR (2013) Reformed Orthodoxy in Britain. In Selderhuis H (ed) A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy. Leiden: Brill. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Reformed Orthodoxy in Puritanism 59 Van Asselt WJ (2013) Reformed Orthodoxy. A Short History of Research. In Selderhuis H (ed) A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy. Leiden: Brill. Van Dixhoorn C (2009) The Strange Silence of Prolocutor Twisse. Predestination and Politics in the Westminster Assembly’s Debate over Justification. Sixteenth Century Journal 40(2): 405-6. Watts MR (1985) The Dissenters. From the Reformation to the French Revolution. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Webster T (1987) Strange Bedfellows. Oliver Cromwell, John Goodwin, and the Crisis of Calvinism. Church History 56(1): 39-58. Webster T (1997) Godly Clergy in Early Stuart England. The Caroline Puritan Movement, c.1620-1643. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Winship MP (2002) Making Heretics. Militant Protestantism and Free Grace in Massachusetts, 1636-1641. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Perichoresis Volume 14. Issue 3 (2016): 61-80 DOI: 10.1515/perc-2016-0016 REFORMED ORTHODOXY ON IMPUTATION. ACTIVE AND PASSIVE JUSTIFICATION JOHN V. FESKO* Westminster Seminary California ABSTRACT. The doctrine of imputation is common to Early Modern Lutheran and Reformed theology, but Reformed orthodox theologians employed the distinction between the active and passive justification of the believer. Active justification is the objective imputation of Christ’s righteousness and passive justification is the subjective reception of the same. This distinction is a unique contribution in Reformed orthodox dogmatics and was used in polemics against Roman Catholic, Arminian, and Socinian theologians. This essay also compares Reformed orthodox formulations with Lutheran orthodox understandings of how they preserved the extra nos of Christ’s righteousness in justification. The Reformed orthodox employed the active-passive justification distinction in conjunction with the decree and the doctrine of the covenant of redemption, whereas the Lutheran orthodox logically placed justification first in the order of salvation. Both groups maintain the extra nos of Christ’s imputed righteousness but do so in different ways. KEY WORDS: imputation, active justification, passive justification, justification, union with Christ. Introduction The doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ is a hallmark teaching of the Reformed tradition and appears in numerous Reformed confessions and catechisms. Reformation era (1517-65) confessions and catechisms that affirm the doctrine of imputed righteousness include the Tetrapolitan Confession (1530), III; Forty-Two Articles (1553), XI; French Confession (1559), XVIXX; Belgic Confession (1561), XXII-XXIII; Heidelberg Catechism, qq. 60-61; and Second Helvetic Confession (1566), XV (Pelikan and Hotchkiss 2003). But the doctrine of imputed righteousness is not unique to the Reformed tradition, as the Lutheran tradition also affirms it (Kolb and Wengert 2000). Where the doctrine of imputed righteousness takes on a unique form, however, is in the hands of Reformed orthodox theologians of the seventeenth century in terms of iustificatio activa et passiva (‘active and passive justification’). Alternate terms for this distinction are iustificatio objectiva et subjectiva * JOHN V. FESKO (PhD 1999, University of Aberdeen) is professor of systematic and historical theology as well as academic dean at Westminster Seminary California, Escondido, California, United States of America. Email: jvfesko@wscal.edu. © EMANUEL UNIVERSITY of ORADEA PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 62 JOHN V. FESKO (‘objective and subjective justification’) (Muller 1985: 162-63). In short, active justification denotes the objective work of Christ and the imputation of his righteousness to the elect. Passive justification is the subjective reception of Christ’s righteousness by faith alone. Active justification logically precedes passive justification; moreover, active justification logically precedes regeneration and faith in the ordo salutis (‘order of salvation’). The active-passive distinction is unique to the Reformed orthodox doctrine of imputation. But to date, there is very little historical research on this aspect of the Reformed doctrine of imputation (Beeke and Jones 2012: 133-48; Bavinck 2003-08: IV:219-23; Berkhof 1996: 517; Tipton 2013: 1-12). Therefore, in this essay I treat the active-passive distinction to highlight this unique element of the Reformed doctrine of imputation. First, I illuminate the historical-theological context that accounts for the rise of the distinction. Second, I explain the distinction’s basic tenets and its context within the cradle of Reformed covenant theology by examining early (1565- ca.1640) and high orthodox (ca. 1640-1700) formulations. Third, for the sake of providing a thicker account of this unique aspect of the Reformed doctrine of imputation, I compare and contrast the active-passive distinction with some Lutheran orthodox formulations. While Lutheran and Reformed orthodox theologians shared the doctrine of imputed righteousness and were equally concerned to protect its alien nature, the extra nos of imputation, Lutherans addressed these concerns in a different manner than their Reformed counterparts. They did not employ the doctrine of the covenants, nor did they agree with Reformed theologians on the doctrine of predestination. Hence, they resorted to fine-toothed distinctions regarding the ordo salutis. Fourth, and last, I conclude the essay with some general observations about the historical-theological significance of the uniqueness of the Reformed doctrine of imputed righteousness. Historical Reformation Origins The precise origin of the active-passive distinction is beyond the scope of this essay. What is more important is establishing the historical-theological context that gave rise to the distinction. There are three likely reasons that account for the idea’s development: the Tridentine rejection of the doctrine of imputation, the Osiander controversy, and the rise of Remonstrant theology. The Council of Trent. From the earliest days of the Reformation, theologians spoke of justification by faith alone (sola fide), which was the means by which they protected the idea of the imputation of the alien righteousness of Christ. Roman Catholic theologians were well aware of this and called the Council of Trent to respond. There were some Roman Catholic theologians, such as bishops Reginald Pole (1500-58) and Girolamo Seripando (1493-1563), who PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Reformed Orthodoxy on Imputation. Active and Passive Justification 63 were sympathetic to the teaching of Martin Luther (1483-1546). Nevertheless, Diego Layñez (1512-65), a Spanish Jesuit, stepped forward and from some scribbled notes and memory, offered a three-hour speech against imputation. Despite the sympathies for Luther’s doctrine among some of the delegates, Layñez’s speech was influential and undoubtedly led to the unanimous approval of the decree on justification (O’Malley 2013: 104-13; Fichter 1944: 61-65; Maxcey 1979: 269). Layñez offered numerous reasons as to why he believed the doctrine of imputed righteousness was erroneous (Layñez 1886: 153-92). But at the core of his concerns was the idea that imputation left little room, if at all, for the believer’s good works or merits: ‘Where we find imputation, we do not find, properly speaking, merit’ (Layñez 1886: 167). This comment represents one of the chief fulcrums in the debates over justification between the Roman Catholics and the Reformed—Rome taught justification by faith working through love and the Reformed, along with the Lutherans, believed in justification sola fide (Calvin 2009: 114-17, 128). The Protestant reformers were adamant about protecting the extra nos of justification and recognizing that its legal ground was imputed, not inherent, righteousness. The Osiander Controversy. Another pressure point against the doctrine of imputed righteousness arose with the controversy surrounding the views of Lutheran theologian, Andreas Osiander (1498-1552). In contrast to Luther and Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560), who both believed that justification was a forensic declaration that rested upon Christ’s imputed righteousness, Osiander maintained that believers instead shared in the essential righteousness of Christ’s divine nature by virtue of personal indwelling (cf. Osiander 1994: 422-47; Mattes 264-73). Osiander’s view was justification by indwelled righteousness, or by union with Christ, rather than imputed righteousness received by faith alone. To say the least, Osiander threw a firebomb onto the theological playground of Europe that provoked a heated and sustained refutation from both Lutheran and Reformed theologians (Wengert 2013: 6387; Wengert 2012; Arand, Kolb, and Nestingen 2012: 217-26). Theologians from both camps were eager to preserve the extra nos of imputation and at the same time affirm the doctrine of union with Christ. Melanchthon, for example, writes: ‘We clearly affirm the presence or indwelling of God in the reborn’. But he nevertheless carefully explains the relationship between indwelling and justification: ‘Although God dwelt in Moses, Elijah, David, Isaiah, Daniel, Peter, and Paul, nevertheless none of them claimed to be righteous before God on account of this indwelling or the effecting of their renewal but on account of the obedience of the Mediator and his gracious intercession, since, in this life, the remnants of sin were still in them’ (Me- PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 64 JOHN V. FESKO lanchthon 2002: 208-09; Melanchthon 1841: 579-87, esp. 582-83). John Calvin (1509-64) responded in similar fashion in a section in his 1559 edition of the Institutes that he specifically added to refute Osiander. Calvin insisted that believers had to turn away from their own works and only look to God’s mercy in Christ for their righteousness: ‘This is the experience of faith… that with Christ’s righteousness interceding and forgiveness of sins accomplished [the sinner] is justified. And although regenerated by the Spirit of God, he ponders the everlasting righteousness laid up for him not in the good works to which he inclines but in the sole righteousness of Christ’ (Calvin 1960: III.xi.16; Calvin 1559). Calvin, like Melanchthon, acknowledges divine indwelling, but nevertheless rests justification upon an alien righteousness outside of the believer. The Arminius Controversy. The third pressure point that led to the creation and use of the active-passive distinction was the Reformed tradition’s engagement with Remonstrant theology. People usually associate the Arminian controversy with Jacob Arminius (1560-1609) and the doctrine of predestination and the question of the extent of Christ’s satisfaction. For whom did Christ die? These associations are correct but do not represent every debated doctrinal issue. Some Reformed theologians, such as Sibbrandus Lubbertus (ca. 1555-1625) and Francisus Gomarus (1563-1641), also expressed concerns over Arminius’s doctrine of justification (Goudriaan 2010: 155-78). Briefly, in contrast to the Reformed, Arminius believed that justification rested upon the believer’s faith rather than Christ’s imputed righteousness. For the Reformed, justification did not rest upon faith; faith is the instrument of justification, not its legal basis (Fesko 2014: 1-21). Summary. In all three cases, theologians sought to locate the basis for justification within the believer. Rome based justification upon Christ’s merit and the believer’s good works by faith working through love. Osiander based justification upon the essential righteousness of Christ to which believers had access by virtue of their union with Christ and his indwelling presence. And Arminius based justification upon faith—God looked upon the believer’s faith as if it were righteousness. In each of these controversies, Reformed theologians rejected attempts to locate the basis of justification in the believer and preserved the extra nos of justification—the alien imputed righteousness of Christ received by faith alone. Early Reformed Orthodoxy (1565-ca. 1640) As the Reformed church engaged critics of the doctrine of imputed righteousness, they also refined the presentation of their own doctrinal formula- PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Reformed Orthodoxy on Imputation. Active and Passive Justification 65 tions. Among the many developments and refinements was the greater integration of covenant theology into Reformed theological systems (Muller 2007: 11-65; Fesko 2015). It is particularly the doctrine of the pactum salutis, the eternal intra-trinitarian covenant to plan and execute the redemption of the elect that was the context in which Reformed orthodox theologians moved the doctrine of imputation to ensure that Christ’s righteousness served as the sole basis for the believer’s justification. But we must first explore the earliest uses of the distinction before we examine some of the more developed formulations. In what is perhaps one of the earliest uses of the active-passive distinction, Lucas Trelcatius, Jr. (1573-1607) dissects the doctrine of justification by explaining what God does and what people do. Throughout his locus on justification, Trelcatius distinguishes between the two sides of the doctrine, ‘Actively, in respect of God, who iustifyeth; or Passively, in respect of man, who is iustified’ (Trelcatius 1610: 227; Trelcatius 1604: 79). In context, Trelcatius engaged ‘the Popelings’ (Pontificiis) who believed that an infused disposition of righteousness was necessary for justification (Trelcatius 1610: 228). Trelcatius countered the idea of inherent righteousness through the concept of active justification, for which Christ and his merit (his active and passive obedience) is the impulsive cause. Passive justification, on the other hand, is wholly instrumental and receptive (Trelcatius 1610: 229). Although he does not mention Osiander by name, Trelcatius nevertheless excludes any notion of Christ’s essential or divine righteousness as the foundation of active justification. Rather, Christ’s ‘perfect obedience, performed to the Father, both by satisfaction for sin, and by fulfilling of the Law’, constitutes the legal ground for active justification (Trelcatius 1610: 231). Trelcatius relates Christ’s imputed righteousness to his office as surety, by which Christ was bound by a ‘voluntary dispensation, to undergoe, and performe those things’. Christ’s role as surety ensured he would pay the debt of sin on behalf of the elect (Trelcatius 1610: 232-33). But Trelcatius did not characterize this legal imputation in terms of a cold mathematical exchange of righteousness for sin. Trelcatius explains: ‘The forme of Iustification, taken actively, is a free imputation of Christ’s actuall righteousnesse, whereby the merits and obedience of Christ are applied unto us by virtue of that most strait communion, whereby he is in us, and we in him’ (Trelcatius 1610: 234). The Reformed did not object to relating justification to union with Christ, but unlike Osiander, they insisted that justification rests upon Christ’s imputed righteousness, not inherent righteousness. So Trelcatius wraps active justification and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness in the doctrine of union with Christ, but he carefully stipulates that imputed righteousness is neither a habitual possession nor the substance of Christ, nor an inherent PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 66 JOHN V. FESKO quality in the believer (Trelcatius 1610: 235). With this particular qualification Trelcatius affirms union with Christ but rejects the views of Osiander and the Roman Catholic Church, though he later mentions Robert Bellarmine (1542-1641) as a specific opponent (Trelcatius 1610: 244; cf. Bellarmine 1610: I.xiii-xix, cols. 747-72). In his mind, righteousness is a gift and is technically ‘out of us’ (extra nos), even though we receive it through union with Christ (Trelcatius 1610: 236; Trelcatius 1604: 82). Trelcatius may have been one of the first to employ the active-passive distinction but he was soon joined by other theologians. Johannes Wollebius (1589-1629) published his Christianae Theologiae Compendium in 1626, and he uses the distinction in virtually the same manner. He too, like Trelcatius, was concerned about Roman Catholic teaching and sought to distinguish the active and passive elements of justification. Understood actively, both the matter and form of justification is the ‘imputation of the entire satisfaction of Christ’. Passively considered, the matter ‘is man who is wretched in himself, but nevertheless chosen by God, called, and given faith’. Wollebius makes an important qualification, however, that will appear in other theologians, especially Lutheran Orthodox formulations. Namely, ‘Therefore, although calling is prior to faith and faith to justification, in the nature of the matter [natura sit prior], yet they do not take place at different times. As soon as one is effectively called, he is given faith and justified by faith’ (Wollebius 1965: I.xxx.11-12; Wollebius 1633: 249). Wollebius distinguishes the different elements of redemption (calling, faith, and justification) but recognizes that they all occur simultaneously. When he invokes the term natura, he employs a medieval distinction regarding the ordo naturae (‘order of nature’), which allowed theologians logically to order and prioritize aspects of complex doctrines. More will be said about this below (§4). Nevertheless, another point to note is that, though Wollebius distinguishes the different elements of redemption, he not only recognizes the simultaneity of their application but also that they all come through union with Christ (Wollebius 1965: I.xxx.13). Around the same time that Wollebius published his Compendium, William Ames (1576-1633) published his Medulla S. S. Theologiae (1630). Ames does not employ the active-passive distinction, but he argues that there are three doctrinal pivot points for justification. He locates justification in the decree of God, in Christ’s personal justification through his resurrection from the dead, and in the declaration when a person makes a profession of faith. There is a sense in which the elect are justified before they make a profession of faith, though Ames carefully stipulates that believers are ‘in actuality’ (virtualiter pronunciatur) justified when ‘faith is born’ (fide ingenerata exurgit) (Ames 1968: I.xxvii.9; Ames 1630). Ames is not unique as a similar construction appears in Girolamo Zanchi (1519-90) (Zanchi 1590: IV.ii.7). While it may not be immediately evident, there are important substantive connections between PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Reformed Orthodoxy on Imputation. Active and Passive Justification 67 the formulations of Trelcatius and Ames. Trelcatius acknowledged that Christ’s role as surety positioned his merit as the sole legal basis for justification, and Ames similarly recognized that justification first existed in the decree. In other words, both theologians coordinate justification, especially imputation, in Christ’s appointment as surety in the decree. High Reformed Orthodoxy (ca. 1640-1700) Westminster and Savoy The coordination of the decree, Christology, and justification continued to develop in the years immediately following the publication of these three Early Orthodox works through the labors of the Westminster Assembly. The Westminster divines were keen on protecting the integrity of the doctrine of justification from a number of different errors, and they spell them out in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1648). They preclude the views of Roman Catholicism, Osiander, and Arminius when they state that justification is not the infusion of righteousness, nor ‘anything wrought in them, or done by them… nor by imputing faith it self, the act of beleeving, or any other evangelicall obedience, to them, as their righteousnesse, but, by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them’ (Westminster 1648: XI.i). But the divines were also concerned to proscribe another problematic doctrine, namely, justification from eternity. In the ongoing efforts to protect the extra nos of imputed righteousness and the monergistic nature of justification, some theologians, such as William Twisse (1578-1646), prolocutor of the Westminster Assembly, argued that God fully justified the elect in eternity— that justification was an immanent act of the triune God, which protected the doctrine from Neonomian claims that good works played some role in the believer’s justification (Twisse 1632: 197). When people made a profession of faith they merely became aware of their already-justified status. Theologians who promoted justification from eternity employed the in foro Dei (‘in the court of God’) and the in foro conscientiae (‘in the court of conscience’) distinction to account for their view. In other words, God justified the elect in eternity in foro Dei, but the elect discovered their justified status by faith in foro conscientiae (Boersma 2004: 80-87). In this type of formulation, justification precedes all of the other benefits of redemption; a completed justification is first in the ordo salutis. The divines were well aware of such views and rejected them (Van Dixhoorn 2009: 395-418). They write: ‘God did, from all eternity, decree to justifie all the elect, and Christ did, in the fullnesse of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: neverthelesse, they are not justified, until the holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them’ (XI.iv). Echoing the earlier formulations of Ames and Zanchi, the divines do not em- PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 68 JOHN V. FESKO ploy the active-passive distinction, but they do recognize that justification exists in the decree. The elect, however, are not actually justified until they make a profession of faith. Moreover, in concert with the earlier formulations of Trelcatius, Wollebius, and Ames, the divines coordinate the decree, christology, and justification: ‘It pleased God, in His eternall purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only begotten Son, to be the Mediatour between God and Man; the Prophet, Priest, and King, the Head, and Saviour of his Church, the Heir of all things, and Judge of the World: Unto whom He did from all eternity give a People, to be his Seed, and to be by him in time Redeemed, Called, Justified, Sanctified, and Glorified’ (VIII.i). The divines link the decree, Christ’s role as mediator, and justification, but rest it upon the decree-execution distinction. Very shortly after the Westminster Assembly, congregational theologians adopted a modified version of the Westminster Confession, the Savoy Declaration (1658). First, under the guidance of John Owen (1616-83) and Thomas Goodwin (1600-80), Savoy modifies Westminster Confession XI.iv, noted by the italicized word: ‘God did from all eternity decree to justifie all the Elect… Nevertheless, they are not justified personally, until the holy Spirit doth in due time actually apply Christ unto them’ (Savoy 1659: XI.iv). The Savoy divines inserted the word personally to emphasize that justification objectively exists prior and outside of the elect but the elect must individually lay hold of it by faith. This construction echoes Ames’s earlier formulations and finds expression in Goodwin’s tria momenta of justification: (1) the decreed justification in the covenant of redemption, (2) the justification of Christ in history, and (3) the actual justification by faith of the elect (Jones 2010: 230-38). The second key modification comes in Savoy VIII.i, indicated by italicized print: ‘It pleased God in his eternal purpose, to chuse and ordain the Lord Jesus his onely begotten Son, according to the Covenant made between them both, to be the Mediator between God and Man… unto whom he did from all eternity give a people to be his seed, and to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified’. In contrast to Westminster, the Savoy divines explicitly included the doctrine of the covenant of redemption. In other words, Christ’s appointment as mediator and surety was the context in which the triune God decreed the justification of the elect. These developments (the coordination of the decree, Christology, justification, and covenant) all set the stage for the most developed arguments for the active-passive distinction, which flower in the period of High Orthodoxy. High Orthodox Theologians A significant number of High Orthodox theologians employ the active-passive distinction including Bartholomäus Keckermann (ca. 1572-1608), Mar- PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Reformed Orthodoxy on Imputation. Active and Passive Justification 69 cus Wendelin (1584-1652), Johannes Maccovius (1588-1644), Anthony Tuckney (1599-1670), Samuel Maresius (1599-1673), Samuel Rutherford (160061), John Brown of Wamphray (ca. 1610-79), Johannes Hoornbeck (161766), Andreas Essenius (1618-77), Francis Turretin (1623-87), Christoph Wittich (1625-87), Petrus Van Mastricht (1630-1706), Johannes Heidegger (1633-98), Wilhelmus á Brakel (1635-1711), Leonard Rijssen (1636-1700), Herman Witsius (1636-1708), Melchior Leydekker (1642-1721), and Johannes Marckius (1656-1731) (Fesko 2012: 352). In some cases, these advocates simply invoke the distinction without much explanation—there is no immediate stated concern about a specific theological error or opponent (Maccovius 1656: 124-25; Brown 1695: 348-49; Rijssen 1695: 145-46, 159; and Tuckney 1649: 73). In other cases, theologians have specific erroneous views in the crosshairs. Maresius and Heidegger target Roman Catholic doctrine, specifically Tridentine twofold justification (Maresius 1659: 453; Heidegger 1690: 541). Rutherford raises the distinction in his refutation of Roman Catholic and Arminian views (Rutherford 1636: 43). Marckius targets the views of Roman Catholics, Arminians, and Schismatics (Marckius 1749: 461-62). Wittich brings the distinction to bear against Arminians (Wittich 1675: 100-01). À Brakel raises the distinction in his refutation of justification from eternity (À Brakel 1993: II:376-78). Turretin opens his question on justification by faith with the distinction to respond to the errors of Socinians, Remonstrants, and Romanists (Turretin 1992-97: XVI.vii.1). And Witsius invokes the distinction to respond to Arminius’s doctrine of faith (Witsius 1990: II.vii.16). There is therefore no single target in view but rather Reformed orthodox theologians employ the distinction for different reasons and to respond to various (in their eyes) erroneous views. Herman Witsius One theologian who addresses the subject in great detail is Witsius, and thus his understanding of the distinction deserves examination. Witsius employs the distinction in two separate loci in his system, under his treatments of the satisfaction of Christ and justification. In his treatment of Christ’s satisfaction, Witsius responds to Arminius’s doctrine of faith, namely, that faith is the ground of our acceptance before the divine bar. Witsius objects: ‘Faith is not considered as impetrating, but as applying the impetrated remission’ (Witsius 1990: II.vii.16; Witsius 1685). Witsius explains that the righteousness that justifies does not belong to the believer but to Christ, as it is his obedience: ‘This righteousness of Christ, was really his, as it was wrought out by him; and it is ours, as it was wrought out for us: therefore, in a sound sense, even ours before faith, being the meritorious cause of that grace which is effectual to PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 70 JOHN V. FESKO produce faith in us’ (Witsius 1990: II.vii.16). Witsius describes Christ’s righteousness as objective and prior to the regeneration of and Christ’s actual union with the elect. Witsius goes on to distinguish the difference between right (ius) and possession (possessio) (cf. Luther 1957: 333-77, esp. 352-54; Oberman 1992: 121). Prior to their conversion the elect have right to the righteousness of Christ but they do not possess it by faith. At this point Witsius introduces the activepassive distinction, terms that are ‘well known’ (Witsius 1990: II.vii.16). Active justification ‘is that sentence of God, by which he declares his having received satisfaction from Christ, and pronounces that all the elect are made free from guilt and obligation to punishment, even before their faith, so far as never to exact of them any payment’. By contrast, passive justification ‘is the acknowledgment and sense of that most sweet sentence, intimated to the conscience by the Holy Spirit, and fiducially apprehended by each of the elect’. In Witsius’s mind, this distinction answers ‘the cavils of Arminius’ (Witsius 1990: II.vii.16). There are several noteworthy observations about Witsius’s use of the active-passive distinction. First, we must recognize that his treatment of Christ’s satisfaction falls under the broader context of the pactum salutis, the eternal covenant between the Father and Son. His treatment of the pactum opens book II on the covenant of grace (Witsius 1990: II.ii.1-16). Part of the stipulations of the pactum is that the Son, as mediator and covenant surety, would render perfect obedience to the Father and suffer the penalty of the law on behalf of the elect (Witsius 1990: II.iii.12). Within the pactum Christ’s obedience bears the relationship of both antecedent to consequent and of merit to reward—his obedience is the cause and fulfilled condition that secures the reward of life (Witsius II.iii.32). God imputes Christ’s work as covenant surety to the elect. Witsius writes: ‘This is the first effect of Christ’s suretiship, the declaration of that counsel of God, by which he had purposed to justify the ungodly; and not to impute sin to those who are inserted as heirs in the testament’ (Witsius 1990: III.viii.52). Second, Witsius couches the active-passive distinction in the midst of several other distinctions in his doctrine of justification. Witsius identifies articulus (‘articles’) of justification. He distinguishes between general and particular justification—general justification is the absolution that God declares over the elect ‘in general collected into one mystical body’. The first article of general justification occurred immediately on the heels of the fall, when Christ’s suretiship formally began; the second article of general justification is when Christ offered himself in his sacrificial death on the cross (Witsius 1990: III.viii.52). Within particular justification Witsius identifies five articles. The first is when the elect are regenerated and united to Christ; they pass from a state PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Reformed Orthodoxy on Imputation. Active and Passive Justification 71 of condemnation and wrath to grace and favor. Upon the person’s profession of faith God declares in foro coeli (‘in the court of heaven’) that he is no longer in a state of wrath. This can occur and yet a person might still be ignorant of his justified status. In the second article of particular justification God announces the verdict to the person’s conscience. The believer knows, feels, and experiences the forgiveness of sins. The third article of particular justification is when the person who has been actively and passively justified (active et passive justificatus) enters into communion and mutual friendship with God (amicitae consortium). The fourth article is when, immediately upon death, God assigns to the soul upon its departure from the body an eternal mansion. The fifth and final article is at the final judgment when the elect will be publically justified, which Witsius denominates universal justification (justificatio universalis) (Witsius 1990: III.viii.59-63). But lest his readers misunderstand, Witsius stipulates that this public justification differs from the believer’s justification by faith, which he calls the justificatio impii, or justification of the ungodly (Romans 4:5) (Witsius 1990: III.viii.64). The legal ground of the universal justification, which is a vindication before the world, is inherent righteousness, which comes by the Spirit of sanctification (Witsius 1990: III.viii.65). The legal ground of particular justification, however, is ‘no other than the righteousness of Christ the Lord, communicated to them according to the free decree of election, which is succeeded by adoption, which gives them a right to take possession of inheritance’ (Witsius 1990: III.viii.66). Although Witsius applies the term justification to the events surrounding the believer’s assessment at the final judgment, the grounds are different and so are the consequents—universal justification merely confirms the piety of the believer whereas particular justification, grounded upon active justification (the imputed righteousness of Christ) originating in the pactum salutis, secures his eternal inheritance (Witsius III.viii.65-66). Witsius heaps distinction upon distinction to dizzying heights, but he nevertheless preserves the extra nos of justification through the active-passive distinction. The following chart illustrates this point: Articles General Justification Particular Justification 1. Sentence of absolution over the elect—the mystical body 1. Declared in the court of heaven to have passed from condemnation to grace 2. Declaration of satisfaction was made by Christ’s death 2. Sentence of God in the conscience PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 72 JOHN V. FESKO 3. Once actively and passively justified entering communion and participation with God. 4. Upon death the soul is assigned a mansion in heaven 5. Universal justification based upon Spirit-produced sanctification as evidence of personal piety Witsius, like other High Orthodox theologians simply wanted to delineate the different elements within the doctrine of justification. In this regard, theologians like Samuel Maresius and Leonard Rijssen observe that the activepassive distinction does not denote a degree or kind of justification but merely highlights the à quo & ad quem (‘by whom and to whom’) of the doctrine (Maresius 1659: 453; Rijssen 1695: 159). God imputes Christ’s righteousness and believers receive it. The active-passive distinction parallels another common distinction: the impetration and application of redemption. Moreover, given that High Orthodox theologians such as Witsius nestle active justification high in the eternal nest of the pactum salutis and decree of God, creabiles homines (‘creatable men’) who do not, as of yet, have existence cannot somehow wrest or move the legal basis for justification away from Christ. We can now move on to a comparison of this Reformed elaboration of the doctrine of justification with the way in which their Lutheran counterparts dealt with it. Lutheran Orthodoxy In comparison with Reformed orthodox theologians, Lutheran Orthodox theologians have similar concerns, and in the broader picture, have similar doctrines of justification. Both groups believe that justification is by faith alone, by God’s grace alone, and that it rests upon the imputed righteousness of Christ, which consists in his active and passive obedience (Kolb and Wengert 2000: 494-97). Evidence of the agreement on these points comes from the harmony of Reformed confessions compiled under the oversight of Theodore Beza (1519-1605). Beza included a number of Lutheran confessional documents and their respective statements on justification to show the Reformed agreement with the Lutheran churches on this key doctrine of the Reformation (Beza 1586: 242-305; Beza 1592). Yet, this does not mean that there was perfect agreement regarding the doctrine of justification, particularly as it related to other doctrines. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Reformed Orthodoxy on Imputation. Active and Passive Justification 73 The Formula of Concord (1577) famously rejects the Reformed doctrine of predestination (Kolb and Wengert 2000: 517-20, 640-56; cf. Arand, Kolb, and Nestingen 2012: 201-16). Lutheran theologians generally do not link their doctrine of justification to the decree in the same manner as the Reformed. Another key difference between the two groups is the doctrine of the covenant. Generally, as a rule, Lutheran theologians do not give the doctrine of the covenant the same architectonic function as the Reformed, though there are exceptions (Jäger 1713). Like the Reformed, Lutheran theologians were eager to protect the extra nos of justification. But Lutheran Orthodox theologians employed different theological distinctions to preserve this characteristic. One Lutheran theologian, Sebastian Schmidt (1617-96), specifically engages the Reformed orthodox theologians, such as Maccovius and Wendelin, on the active-passive distinction. Schmidt rejects the distinction because, in his analysis, Maccovius and Wendelin treat active justification as an immanent act whereas he believes it is a transient act of God. In his judgment Maccovius confuses justification with predestination (Schmidt 1696: VI.iv-viii). Moreover, he believed that the distinction ultimately rested upon the erroneous Reformed doctrine of absolute predestination (1696: VI.ix). Schmidt contends that there is only one type of justification, which is a temporal and transient act (Schmidt 1696: VI.ix). Given the Lutheran rejection of the Reformed doctrine of predestination, especially the proclamations of the Synod of Dordt (1618-19), Schmidt’s comments reflect the general approach of Lutheran theologians regarding the doctrines of justification and imputation (Hunnius 1663). Lutheran theologians were concerned with the same doctrinal errors as the Reformed, and hence engaged Roman Catholics, Osiander, Arminians, and Socinians in their treatments of justification (Quenstedt 1691: 528-78). To defend the extra nos of imputed righteousness, Johannes Quenstedt (161788) states that the effects of justification are mystical union with God, adoption, peace of conscience, certainty in prayer, sanctification, and eternal life (Quenstedt 1691: 526). In contrast to Osiander, who placed justification in union with Christ, Quenstedt places justification first and union with Christ as an effect. Quenstedt further emphasizes this point in his definition of justification when he explains that justification is an external act of the sacred Trinity. Imputation brings the alien righteousness of Christ, which believers apprehend by faith (Quenstedt 1691: 526). But though Quenstedt placed justification prior to union with Christ and set them in a cause-and-effect relationship, this does not mean that he believed that God parceled redemption in a chronological piecemeal approach, step by step. Quenstedt clearly affirms the simultaneity of redemption: ‘Regeneration, justification, union, and renovation are simultaneous, and, being more PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 74 JOHN V. FESKO closely united than the ingredients of an atom (quovis puncto mathematico arctiores), so cohere that they cannot be separated or rent asunder’ (Quenstedt 1691; 621; Schmid 1899: 481). So for Quenstedt, believers receive all of the benefits of union with Christ simultaneously. But Quenstedt makes the following qualification: ‘Yet, according to our mode of conceiving them, justification and regeneration are prior in order to the mystical union’ (Quenstedt 1691: 621). Quenstedt clearly places justification prior to union, an emphasis most likely developed in response to the Osiander controversy—the righteousness of justification stands outside of the believer not within him. But how do Lutheran Orthodox theologians account for this seemingly contradictory assertion that the benefits are simultaneously applied, yet justification precedes union with Christ? The key to untangling this apparent Gordian knot appears in the works of other Lutheran theologians, such as David Hollatz (1648-1713). Hollatz writes: ‘Although the mystical union by which God dwells in the soul as in a temple, may, according to our mode of conception, follow justification in the order of nature [ordine naturae], it is however to be acknowledged that the formal union of faith, by which Christ is apprehended, put on, and united with us, as the mediator and the author of grace and pardon, logically precedes justification’ (Hollatz 1763: 933; Schmid 1899: 481). Hollatz employs the order of nature to prioritize the various elements of redemption. But whence does this term arise and how does it function? The term ordo naturae originates with the theology of John Duns Scotus (ca. 1266-1308) and the medieval debates over future contingents. In contrast to Thomas Aquinas (1225-74), who employed a Boethian model of God’s relationship to eternity where past, present, and future are all equally present to God, Duns Scotus instead posited the idea that there are non-temporal, logical ‘moments’ or instantes naturae (‘instants of nature’). Time is a human construct, something that does not bind God (Gelber 2004: 130-34; Normore 1984: 359-81, esp. 367-69). This concept allowed theologians to prioritize various elements in their theological discussions about God without being concerned about the chronological or temporal sequence. As the Reformation progressed and Reformed and Lutheran theologians employed medieval scholastic concepts and distinctions in their theology, they discovered Scotus’s instantia naturae, or the ordo naturae (‘order of nature’). Reformed orthodox theologians employed the concept of the ordo naturae to: ‒ ‒ ‒ Explain the order of the trinitarian processions (Owen 1674: 162) Delineate the order and priority of the eternal decrees (Gillespie 1677: 54, 55, 79, 80, 376; Goodwin 1681: 60, 62) Relate the different elements of the ordo salutis, i.e., which comes first, faith or repentance (Goodwin 1692: 16; Ames 1968: I.ii.5)? PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Reformed Orthodoxy on Imputation. Active and Passive Justification 75 Lutheran theologians, such as Hollatz, employed this concept to prioritize the simultaneously received benefits of redemption. Reformed theologians likewise did the same, though in different ways. Francis Roberts (1609-75), author of the massive Mystery and Marrow of the Bible (1675), for example, explains that there are two distinct and inseparable branches of justification: the remission of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. But he nevertheless stipulates: ‘In Order of Nature, Acceptation of our persons as righteous, for Christs imputed righteousness, goes before the Remission of our sins in Christ, and is as the cause thereof: for Christs righteousness actually imputed to us, as the matter of our righteousness, is the foundation of our Remission’ (Roberts 1657: 1477). John Owen makes a similar observation concerning the priority of imputation in redemption. He seeks to answer the question: in what way does Christ’s imputed righteousness belong to the elect prior to their justification (Owen 1677: 232)? Owen invokes the Scotist concept to explain in what sense imputation is antecedent to justification. He argues that in order for someone to be justified, they must have a perfect righteousness by which to secure right and title to eternal life; such a righteousness must be ‘in order of nature antecedently unto their Justification’ (Owen 1677: 233). Owen argues that given Christ’s appointment as covenant surety within the covenant of redemption, God imputes the sin of the elect unto Christ, moreover the elect have right to Christ’s righteousness given their election in him (Owen 1677: 251, 253). So Christ’s forensic work and appointment precedes a person’s actual justification. Only when a person professes faith in Christ does he enter into union with the messiah and thus actually lay hold of Christ’s imputed righteousness. Owen writes: ‘The imputation of sin unto Christ was antecedent unto any real union between him and sinners, whereon he took their sin on him’. But then Owen stipulates, ‘But the imputation of his Righteousness unto Believers, is consequential in order of nature unto their union with him, whereby it becomes theirs in a peculiar manner’ (Owen 1677: 511-12). The differences between Owen on the one hand and Quenstedt and Hollatz on the other are evident, which is illustrated in their differing orders: Owen Quenstedt and Hollatz 1. Election in Christ with imputation of sin to Christ and his antecedent righteousness as surety in the covenant of redemption 2. Actual Union with Christ 1. 2. 3. 4. Justification Regeneration—Calling Faith Union PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 76 JOHN V. FESKO 3. Faith 4. Imputation These theologians clearly have different sequences, but three similarities should be noted. First, this is not a temporal order—all three couch their respective orders as non-temporal and logical, according to the ordo naturae. Second, they affirm the simultaneity of the application of redemption. Third, they protect the extra nos of justification but do so through different means. All three were concerned to protect the extra nos of justification, but for slightly different reasons. The Lutherans wanted to address Osiander’s erroneous views, and Owen was specifically concerned about Roman Catholicism and Neonomianism (Owen 1677: 191, 241). But they accomplished this by different means: Owen and the Reformed typically appealed to the decree nestled in the doctrine of the pactum and to the active-passive justification distinction, whereas the Lutherans instead argued for a different logical prioritization of the application of redemption. Despite the differences, in both formulations imputation in some sense stands outside of union with Christ, though for Owen and the Reformed the ultimate reception of imputation was dependent upon the Christ’s mystical union with the believer. For the Reformed imputation exists in the decree and covenant of redemption and for the Lutherans it logically precedes union with Christ in the ordo naturae. Conclusion This essay is a brief examination of a very common yet little-researched Reformed orthodox distinction. Further research should be undertaken to determine its precise origins and the varied ways in which it has been employed in Reformed orthodox systems. The existence and use of the distinction demonstrates that the Reformed were just as eager as the Lutherans to protect the extra nos of Christ’s imputed righteousness—justification does not rest upon infused righteousness or the essential righteousness of Christ as shared in the union, and neither does it rest upon the believer’s good works or his faith. Through the active-passive distinction Reformed theologians clearly distinguished between impetrated and applied righteousness. In this respect, Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) notes that not one Reformed theologian ‘treated or completed the doctrine of justification in the locus of the counsel of God or the covenant of redemption, but they all brought it up in the order of salvation, sometimes as active justification before and as passive justification after faith’. They did this, argues Bavinck, to protect the legal foundation of redemption—that it lies with the triune God and in Christ’s righteousness, not with humanity (Bavinck 2003-08: III:591). In this unique manner Reformed orthodox theologians maintained the doctrine of union with Christ but also preserved the extra nos of his imputed righteousness. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Reformed Orthodoxy on Imputation. Active and Passive Justification 77 Bibliography Á Brakel W (1993) The Christian’s Reasonable Service, 4 volumes. Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria. Ames W (1630) Medulla S. S. Theologiae. London: Robert Allot. Ames W (1968) The Marrow of Theology. Eusden J (trans). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker. Arand C, Kolb R, and Nestingen J, eds (2012) The Lutheran Confessions. History and Theology of ‘The Book of Concord’. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress. Bavinck H (2003-08) Reformed Dogmatics, 4 volumes. Bolt J (ed), Vriend J (trans). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker. Beeke J and Jones M (2012) A Puritan Theology. Doctrine for Life. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books. Bellarmine R (1610) De Iustificatione, in Disputationum Roberti Bellarmini, volume 3: De Controversiis Christianae Fidei. Leiden: Ioannes Pillehotte. Berkhof L (1996) Systematic Theology, New Combined Edition. 1932, 1938; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Beza T, ed (1586) An Harmony of the Confessions of the Faith of the Christian and Reformed Churches. Cambridge: Thomas Thomas. Beza T (1592) Apologia Pro Iustificatione Per Unius Christi Viva Fide Apprehensi Iustitiam Gratis Imputatam. Geneva: Oannes le Preux. Boersma H (2004) A Hot Pepper Corn. Richard Baxter’s Doctrine of Justification in Its Seventeenth-Century Context of Controversy. Vancouver: Regent College Publishing. Brown of Wamphray J (1695) The Life of Justification Opened. Utrecht. Calvin J (1559) Institutio Christianae Religionis. Geneva: Robert Stephanus. Calvin J (1960) Institutes of the Christian Religion. Battles F (trans). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Calvin J (2009) Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, with the Antidote, 1547. In John Calvin: Tracts and Letters. Volume 3. Beveridge H, ed (1844). Edinburgh: Banner of Truth. Fesko J (2012) Beyond Calvin. Union with Christ and Justification in Early Modern Reformed Theology (1517-1700). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Fesko J (2014) Arminius on Justification. Reformed or Protestant? Church History and Religious Culture 94(1): 1-21. Fesko J (2015) The Covenant of Redemption. Origins, Development, and Reception Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Fichter J (1944) James Layñez—Jesuit. St. Louis: Herder Book Company. Gelber H (2004) It Could Have Been Otherwise. Contingency and Necessity in Dominican Theology at Oxford, 1300-1350. Leiden: Brill. Gillespie P (1677) The Ark of the Covenant Opened. London: Tho. Parkhurst. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 78 JOHN V. FESKO Goodwin T (1681) An Exposition on the First, and Part of the Second Chapter, of the Epistle to the Ephesians. London: T. G. Goodwin T (1692) Man’s Restauration by Grace. London: Thomas Goodwin. Goudriaan A (2010) Justification by Faith and the Early Arminian Controversy. In Wisse M, Sarot M, and Otten W (eds) Scholasticism Reformed. Essays in Honour of Willem J. van Asselt. Leiden: Brill. Heidegger J (1690) Tumulus Tridentini Concilii. Zurich: David Gessnerus. Hollatz D (1763) Examen Theologicum Acromaticum Universam Theologiam. Leipzig: Breitkopfius et Fil. Hunnius N (1663) Diaskepsis Theologica De fundamentali Dissensu Doctrinae Evangelicae-Lutheranae, et Calvinianae, seu Reformatae. Cum Praemia Consideratione Hypokriseos Calvinianae, Dordrechtana Synodo Proditae. Wittenberg: Fincelius. Jäger J (1713) Pactum Patris ac Filii Aeternum, Tanquam Fundamentum Foederis Gratia, en Synopsis. Tuebingen: Reisius. Jones M (2010) Why Heaven Kissed Earth. The Christology of the Puritan Reformed Orthodox Theologian, Thomas Goodwin (1600-80). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Kolb R and Wengert T, eds (2000) The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis, MI: Fortress, 2000. Layñez D (1886) Disputatio de justitia imputata. In Hartmannus Grisar (ed) Jacobi Lainez ‘Disputationes Tridentiae’, volume 2. Regensburg: Feliciani Rauch. Luther M (1957) The Freedom of the Christian, in Luther’s Works, volume 31. Minneapolis, MI: Fortress. Maccovius J (1656) Distinctiones et Regulae Theologicae ac Philosophicae. Oxford: Robert Blagravius. Marckius J (1749) Compendium Theologiae Christianae Didactico-Elencticum. Amsterdam: Adrian Douci & Abr. A Paddenburg. Maresius S (1659) Collegium Theologicume. Groningen: Franciscus Bronchorstius. Mattes M (2014) Luther on Justification as Forensic and Effective. In Kolb R, Dingel I, and Batka L (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Maxcey C (1979) Double Justice, Diego Layñez, and the Council of Trent, Church History 48(3): 269-278. Melanchthon P (2002) Confutation of Osiander (Sept 1555). In Lund E (ed) Documents from the History of Lutheranism 1517-1750. Minneapolis, MI: Fortress, 2002 Melanchthon P (1841) No. 5848: Iudicium de Osiandro. In Bretschneider C (ed) Corpus Reformatorum, volume 8. Halle: C. A. Schwetschke et Filium, 1841. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Reformed Orthodoxy on Imputation. Active and Passive Justification 79 Muller R (1985) Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. Muller R (2007) Toward the Pactum Salutis: Locating the Origins of a Concept. Mid-America Journal of Theology 18(n.i.): 11-65. Normore C (1984) Future Contingents. In Kretzman N, Kenny A, and Pinborg J (eds) The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy. From the Rediscovery of Aristotle to the Disintegration of Scholasticism 1100-1600. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O’Malley J (2013) Trent. What Happened at the Council. Cambridge: Belknap Press. Oberman H (1992) The Dawn of the Reformation. Essays in Late Medieval and Early Reformation Thought. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Osiander A (1994) Disputatio de Iustificatione in Gesamtausgabe, volume 9. Güttersloher Verlagshaus. Owen J (1674) Pneumatologia. Or a Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit. London: Nathaniel Ponder. Owen J (1677) Justification by Faith Through the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ, Explained, Confirmed, & Vindicated. London: R. Boulster. Quenstedt J (1691) Theologia Didactico-Polemica, Sive, Systema Theologicum. Wittenberg: Johannes Ludolphus Quenstedt. Rijssen L (1695) Francisci Turretini S. S. Theologiae Doctoris & Professoris Compendium Theologiae Didactico-Elencticae. Amsterdam: Georgius Gallet. Roberts F (1657) Medulla Bibliorum. The Mysterie and Marrow of the Bible. London: George Calvert. Rutherford S (1636) Exercitationes Apologeticae Pro Divina Gratia. Amsterdam: Henricus Laurentius. Savoy (1659) A Declaration of the Faith and Order Practiced in the Congregational Churches In England. London: John Field. Schmid H (1899) The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Hay C and Jacobs H (trans). Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society. Schmidt S (1696) Articulorum Formulae Concordiae Repetitio. Strasbourg: Josias Staedelius. Tipton L (2013) Biblical Theology and the Westminster Standards Revisited. Union with Christ and Justification Sola Fide. Westminster Theological Journal 75(1): 1-12. Trelcatius L (1604) Scholastica & Methodica Locorum Communium S. Theologiae Institutio. Leiden. Trelcatius L (1610) A Briefe Institution of the Common Places of Sacred Divinity. London: Francis Burton. Tuckney A (1679) Praelectiones Theologicae. Amsterdam: Stephani Swart. Turretin F (1992-97) Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Philipsburg, NJ: P & R. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 80 JOHN V. FESKO Twisse W (1632) Vindicia Gratiae Potestatis ac Providentiae Dei. Amsterdam: John Jansonius. Van Dixhoorn C (2009) The Strange Silence of Prolocutor Twisse. Predestination and Politics in the Westminster Assembly’s Debate over Justification. Sixteenth Century Journal 40(2): 395-418. Wengert T (2012) Defending the Faith: Lutheran Responses to Andreas Osiander’s Doctrine of Justification, 1551-1559. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Wengert T (2013) Philip Melanchthon and John Calvin against Andreas Osiander. Coming to Terms with Forensic Justification. In Holder R (ed) Calvin and Luther. The Continuing Relationship. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Westminster (1648) The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines, Now By Authority of Parliament Sitting At Westminster, Concerning a Confession of Faith. London. Witsius H (1990) Economy of the Covenants between God and Man, 2 volumes. Escondido: Den Dulk Foundation. Wittich C (1675) Theologia Pacifica. Leiden: Arnoldus Doude. Wollebius J (1633) Christianae Theologiae Compendium. Basel: J. J. Genath. Wollebius J (1965) Compendium Theologiae Christianae. In Beardslee J (trans) Reformed Dogmatics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Zanchi G (1590) De Natura Dei Seu De Divinis Attributis, Libri V. Neustadt: Matthaeus Harnisius. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Perichoresis Volume 14. Issue 3 (2016): 81-96 DOI: 10.1515/perc-2016-0017 THE IMAGE OF GOD IN REFORMED ORTHODOXY. SOUNDINGS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL KEY CONCEPT GIJSBERT VAN DEN BRINK, AZA GOUDRIAAN Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam ABSTRACT. One of the less well-researched areas in the recent renaissance of the study of Reformed orthodoxy is anthropology. In this contribution, we investigate a core topic of Reformed orthodox theological anthropology, viz. its treatment of the human being as created in the image of God. First, we analyze the locus of the imago Dei in the Leiden Synopsis Purioris Theologiae (1625). Second, we highlight some shifts of emphasis in Reformed orthodox treatments of this topic in response to the budding Cartesianism. In particular, the close proximity of the unfallen human being and God was carefully delineated as a result of Descartes’s positing of a univocal correspondence between God and man; and the Cartesian suggestion that original righteousness functioned as a barrier for certain natural impulses, was rejected. Third, we show how, in response to the denial of this connection, the image of God was explicitly related to the concept of natural law. Tying in with similar findings on other loci, we conclude that Reformed orthodox thought on the imago Dei exhibits a variegated pattern of extensions, qualifications, and adjustments of earlier accounts within a clearly discernable overall continuity. KEY WORDS: Reformed orthodoxy, Cartesianism, theological anthropology, imago Dei, natural law. Introduction The recent wave of renewed scholarly interest in Reformed scholasticism is characterized by a sustained wish to listen carefully to Reformed orthodox voices and to chart them in all their complexity and subtlety within the cultural context of early modernity. By avoiding or postponing critical theological judgements, usually voiced from some later perspective, scholars have been able to unearth a much richer, more detailed, and diversified account * GIJSBERT VAN DEN BRINK (PhD 1994, Utrecht University) is professor of theology and science at the Faculty of Theology within the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Email: g.van-den.brink@vu.nl; AZA GOUDRIAAN (PhD 1999, Leiden University) is associate professor of historical theology at the same institution. Email: a.goudriaan@vu.nl. © EMANUEL UNIVERSITY of ORADEA PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 82 GIJSBERT VAN DEN BRINK, AZA GOUDRIAAN of both Reformed scholasticism and Reformed orthodoxy. 1 The groundbreaking studies of Richard Muller continue to be a landmark here (see esp. Muller 2003). Stereotypes that used to govern our perception of Reformed orthodoxy, for example as deviating from the much more ‘purely Reformed’ theology of John Calvin, have been skillfully dismantled (see e.g. Muller 2012a). Meanwhile, as Muller himself indicates in his contribution to this issue (Muller 2016), a lot of historical work has still to be done in this area. In this contribution we will continue the exploration of continuities and discontinuities in post-Reformation Reformed theology by focusing on the notion of the image of God (imago Dei) as it is usually unpacked in theological anthropology, or the locus de homine. Reformed orthodox theological anthropology is not among the areas that have been studied most closely in the recent renaissance of scholarly interest. Clearly, the doctrines of God, revelation and soteriology have taken pride of place here. While the studies we do have on Reformed orthodox anthropology (such as Williams 1948: 66-93; Strohm 1996: 423-446; Goudriaan 2006: 233-286; Van Asselt et al. 2010; Sytsma 2013) focus on a number of different subthemes and in some cases also include an investigation of the content and meaning of the imago Dei, a comprehensive analysis of the theme in Reformed orthodoxy is as yet lacking. At the same time, the imago Dei is usually considered a key concept in both classical and contemporary theological anthropology (cf. for the contemporary discussion e.g. Cortez 2010: 14-40). How significant it is in Reformed thought can be gleaned from the fact that it figures in the very title of the chapter on anthropology in the Leyden Synopsis Theologiae Purioris (1625) ‘About Man Created in the Image of God’ (De homine ad imaginem Dei creato; Te Velde et al. 2015: 314-315). Therefore, there is ample reason for a further exploration of the Reformed orthodox treatment of the imago Dei. What we provide here is no more than a modest attempt to chart some of the trajectories of doctrinal reflection on the topic within the history of Reformed orthodoxy. After having explored the discussion of the imago Dei in the famous Synopsis Theologiae Purioris, a compendium of Reformed dogmatics written by four theology professors at the University of Leiden, we trace some shifts of emphasis in later Reformed orthodox treatments of the topic. In particular, we examine how Reformed orthodox thinkers articulated and elaborated their views on the imago in response to the budding Cartesianism in the later part of the 17th century. We also show how, in response to the denial of this connection, the image of God was explicitly related to the concept of natural law. 1 These two are not identical. Reformed scholasticism first of all denotes a method that can be found already in the time of the Reformation (e.g. in Ursinus, Zanchi, et al.); Reformed orthodoxy denotes the post-Reformation period from ca. 1565-1725 and includes non-scholastic voices and sources next to scholastic ones. In this paper we will focus on Reformed orthodoxy as a period. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) The Image of God in Reformed Orthodoxy 83 We realize that in this way we only explore a small sample of the debates on the image of God that were going on at the time—also, for example, with Remonstrants and Socinians (see Marckius 1690: 248-251; De Moor 1765: 33-35, 38-39, 41-46; Vitringa 1762: 156, 159; cf. Goudriaan 2011). We selected our case studies in such a way, however, that they include various time frames as well as various disciplines—theology, philosophy, and legal studies. Despite the limited character of our inquiry, our findings suffice to show that Reformed orthodox thought on the imago Dei exhibits a variegated pattern of extensions, qualifications, and adjustments of earlier accounts within a clearly discernable overall continuity. The Image of God in the Leiden Synopsis The Synopsis purioris theologiae consists of 52 disputations; disputations 1-23 have recently been republished as the opening volume of a new edition, which for the first time adds an English translation to the Latin text (Te Velde et al. 2015). As the title suggests, the Synopsis surveys the full range of Christian doctrine (for its historical backgrounds, see Van den Belt & Sinnema 2012). Published six years after the closure of the Synod of Dordt (1619), the Synopsis reflects the newly established orthodoxy by expounding Reformed doctrine and delineating it over against Remonstrants, Socinians, Roman Catholics, Libertines, and occasionally also Lutherans. The disputation De homine ad imagem Dei creato is the thirteenth one in line; it is preceded by a disputation on the good and bad angels (12) and followed by disputations on the fall of Adam (14) and original sin (15). In fact, discourse on the image of God is continued in these subsequent disputations since here it becomes clear what remains of the divine image after the Fall. Disputation 13 consists of 54 ‘theses’—short paragraphs that make a distinct point within the overall argument. This format reflects the preceding oral disputation as it was held by one of the professors with his students of theology, who had to defend or oppose these theses. The disputation on the human being as created in the image of God had been presided by one of the four authors of the Synopsis, Antonius Thysius (1565-1640), who most probably also drafted—or in any case endorsed—its theses. The Synopsis’s disputation on the image of God opens with underscoring the unique dignity of the human being: ‘Man is clearly the high point and goal of nature’s lower order, yet he also belongs to a higher order, he is the ‘sum’ of everything (compendium totius) and the bond that links earthly and heavenly things’ (13.2). The idea of the human being as a microcosmos (uniting the material and spiritual parts of created reality in itself), which is alluded to here, was a classical trope that had made its way in Christian theology early on and had also been adopted by, for example, John Calvin (Te Velde et al. 2015, 315; Calvin 1560: I 5, 3). The dignity of the human being PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 84 GIJSBERT VAN DEN BRINK, AZA GOUDRIAAN also shows forth from the fact that humans were the last creatures to be made by God. It is concluded from this sequence that God first made all other things for the sake of mankind, ‘things that make his condition a good and happy one’ in order to finally create man (13.6). In this way, ‘there would be a progression from less to more perfected things’ (13.6). The ‘superior dignity’ (summa dignitas) of humankind is particularly clear, however, from the fact that God created humans in his own image, for this shows that the human being is ‘a rather close copy’ of God (13.8). What exactly does this imago Dei consist in? The Synopsis is unambiguous here: the entire human being ‘in both soul and body’ is created in the image and according to the likeness of God. Thus, the embodied character of our human existence is part of the image of God (13.10-13). To be sure, the earthly material out of which we were created ‘is a reminder of our weakness and humbler nature’ (13.12; humbler, presumably, as compared to the incorporeal angels). It was formed by God to be ‘fit for a human soul’, however (13.13). It is this soul that takes pride of place in the Synopsis’s exposition of the imago Dei. The soul is a proper substance, not an accident or quality (13.15). Its nature very closely approximates the divine essence, and it is made similar to the divine properties (13.18, with reference to Acts 17:28, 29). Thus, like God the soul is ‘immune to death’ (13.27), and it has many ‘godlike functions’ (13.28): For its clever genius is awe-inspiring, as is its swift thinking, its ease of perception, its sharp discernment, its discourse and reasoning about all things, its recollection of past events, its consideration of current events, its ability to foresee future events, and especially its ability to turn towards itself and reflect upon itself, and its self-awareness (13.28). As to the location or ‘seat’ (sedes) of the soul—a theme to which we will return later in this contribution—the Synopsis after some deliberation opts for the heart (13.21-22). The Synopsis dwells on the various faculties of the soul, such as its ability to discern between true and false, fair and unfair, just and unjust, its intellect or mind, and its will. After in this way having explored the various parts of the image of God, the author then proposes the following definition: ‘By this expression we mean the goodness (bonitas) of man, his uprightness (rectitudo) and perfection (or ideal state), his surpassing excellence (excellentia et excessus) over all other living creatures, and his closer approximation to God’ (13.37). This surpassing excellence over all other creatures is connected with man’s divine calling to have dominion over all living things and the whole earth (13.41). Indeed, Moses seems to situate the image of God here (in Genesis 1:26-28) in this particular function—an observation which is shared by many biblical theologians today. But this function cannot be isolated from the PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) The Image of God in Reformed Orthodoxy 85 gift of the soul that is able to reason, and from a body that is able to put this dominion into practice; nor can this be done without wisdom, holiness and justice, or without being united with God. Interestingly, the Synopsis in this way includes in its purview all three ‘models’ that dominate contemporary systematic-theological reflection on the image of God, weaving together the structural, functional, and relational model into an integrated whole (cf. on these models e.g. Van der Kooi and Van den Brink 2017: §7.4). Its discussion of the imago Dei is closed with a final highlighting of the ‘pre-eminent status’ of the created human being (13.54). Interestingly, the Synopsis does not make an exegetical distinction between the ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ of God. Like Calvin (Calvin 1560: 1 15, 3), the authors reject this distinction, arguing that from an exegetical point of view both concepts just explain and reinforce each other. This is interesting, since this distinction, which was introduced already by Irenaeus and Tertullian (Te Velde 2015: 329) and adopted by medieval theologians like Peter Lombard and Bernard of Clairvaux, had been used to bolster a much more important dogmatic distinction, viz. between the immutable substance of the image of God on the one hand and its original endowments (or the ‘likeness’ of God), which could be lost, on the other hand. While the substance of God’s image is to be found in the personal nature of man as a being consisting of body and soul and characterized by knowledge and will, its endowments or supernatural gifts comprise man’s perfect knowledge of God, wisdom and holiness—or in one word: his original righteousness. Indeed, we find this latter distinction in quite some early (e.g. Bucanus, Ursinus, Polanus) and later (e.g. Leydecker, Van Mastricht, Maresius, Heidanus, Walaeus) orthodox Reformed writers (cf. Heppe 1978: loc. XI, 15). The authors of the Synopsis, however, whilst not denying this distinction did not push it either. Why they were reticent in this respect becomes clear in their disputation on original sin (15). If one distinguishes between the essential substance and the accidental endowments of the image of God, it is most obvious to connect (original) sin with the loss of its accidental part and to hold that its essential part was left intact. Indeed, this is how original sin was conceived of in parts of medieval scholastic (especially thomistic) theology. Also, it is this view that became mainstream in the wake of the council of Trente (Vandervelde 1975: 41-42). Reformed orthodoxy, however, considered the effects of human sin to be much more serious. In the Synopsis it is even argued that sin had ‘obliterated’ the image of God, replacing it with the image of Adam that was now being reproduced from generation to generation (15.6). Yet, on further consideration it does not seem as simple as that. For when, for example, also man’s immortal soul belonged to the image of God, as had been claimed by Thysius in disputation 13 (13.39), this would mean that after the fall into sin and the obliteration of the imago Dei man was PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 86 GIJSBERT VAN DEN BRINK, AZA GOUDRIAAN bereft of this soul, henceforth having only a body. That would be an absurd conclusion, however. In order to avoid such conclusions, the Synopsis argues that sin is not a substance but ‘something that inheres in human beings as an accident in the subject’ (15.23). Therefore, it does not change the human being into some other essence. ‘Even Adam, after the fall into sin, kept the same essence of his own nature that he had previously had, and he remained the same man’ (15.23). Original sin did not, as the gnesio-lutheran theologian Matthias Flacius (1520-1575) had it, turn into the ‘formal substance’ of the fallen human being. This is not to say, however, that sin only destroyed the supernatural gifts with which God had adorned human nature, leaving human nature virtually unaffected. Here, it becomes clear that Reformed orthodoxy does not just copy medieval scholasticism, but gave it its own twist in light of the biblical and Augustinian ressourcement brought about by the magisterial Reformation. And so those who locate original sin only in the absence of original righteousness do not express the force of this sin meaningfully enough. For our nature not only is destitute of what is good, but it also is so prolific in all things evil that it cannot be idle. And so along with Scripture we recognize two parts to this corruption [of sin]: the failure and loss of the good, and a depraved tendency to evil (15.25). As a result, our relationship with God is broken, our body is no longer completely governed by our soul so that the original harmony between these two is disrupted, and even the very properties of the soul are seriously distorted. Even in man’s corrupt state, however, he retains his natural faculties, along with what is called the ‘physical substance’ (17.8) of the soul (meaning its ontological substrate). Thus, though seriously damaged, the image of God in the human being is not entirely wiped out. For example, though our free choice is no longer drawn towards the good but towards evil, it is still free in that our will chooses evil ‘willingly, and of its own accord’ (17.19). By the editors of the Synopsis this is taken to mean that it belongs to the human being’s ‘perennial properties to have a will that acts (…) by deliberate choices of alternative options’ (Te Velde et al. 2015: 15; cf. Van Asselt et al. 2010 and, for the opposite view, Helm 2011). Let us draw up the balance of the Synopsis’s discourse on the human being as created in the image of God. To begin with, the ontological, intellectual, and moral perfections of the first human beings are exalted to such an extent that one wonders how it is possible that such perfectly equipped god-like creatures as Adam and Eve could fall into sin. What attraction could evil possibly have on such godly—and god-like—persons? However, the perfection in which the first humans were created serves as a warrant that their transgression cannot be ascribed to any other cause then their own will. It is not their creator that is to be blamed. For, second, in the disputation, ‘on the Fall PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) The Image of God in Reformed Orthodoxy 87 of Adam’, the full responsibility for the primordial sin is laid on the shoulders of the perfect first couple. Although both God’s permission (14.25) and the devil’s instigation (14.27) are recognized, ‘the internal cause of the fall is the free will of both our parents’ (14.30). It is wrong to think that the sin of Adam and Eve was minor and excusable. ‘For the less burdensome and easier it was to observe God’s commandment, so much the more without excuse was each of our parents before God on account of that transgression, and guilty of temporal and eternal death’ (14.37). Thus, their original perfections which the Synopsis had so exuberantly displayed made their transgression and disobedience all the more serious. Reformed Christianity is not well-known for a particularly high appreciation of the human being. In the popular image it even has a more negative view of the human nature and capacities than any other Christian tradition. Indeed, although it is not easy to define what is typical for Reformed theology vis-à-vis other Christian theological traditions (for a recent attempt see Van den Brink and Smits 2015), Reformed theology definitely displays a strong awareness of the human frailty and misery as a result of sin. Though we continue to be distinct from other species and special in God’s eyes, sin deprives us of all spiritual understanding (Calvin 1960: II. 2, 19). There is a clear continuity between, for example, Calvin and the authors of the Synopsis here. At the same time, as we have seen Reformed theologians in the era of Protestant orthodoxy, once again just like Calvin (cf. e.g. Van der Kooi 2005: §2.3.1), ascribed a very high ontological, intellectual, and moral status to the created human being. It is almost impossible to see any continuity between the blissful state in which we were created and our deplorable present state. Arguably, however, it was precisely their belief in the fateful consequences of human sin which inspired the authors of the Synopsis to uphold a high view of the imago Dei: the more perfectly the human being was equipped by God, the more wicked and despicable became his sin. And, in turn, the more wicked his sin, the more glorious and praiseworthy God’s grace. The Image of God and the Debate on Cartesianism We now turn to a few debates in which the imago Dei played a role several decades after the publication of the Synopsis. The first debate is related to the philosophy of René Descartes. In a wide-ranging critique of Cartesian theology that Petrus van Mastricht (1630-1706) published in 1677, creation in the ‘image and likeness of God’ appeared as one of the controversial themes, even though it was dealt with only briefly (Van Mastricht 1677: 475-477; cf. Goudriaan 2006: 264, and on Mastricht’s life and theology, Neele 2009). Three points of Cartesian thought can be mentioned here in particular. In the first place, Van Mastricht targeted the Cartesian notion that the ‘idea of God’ in the human mind was an expression of the image of God. Secondly, PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 88 GIJSBERT VAN DEN BRINK, AZA GOUDRIAAN he criticized the idea that ‘original justice’ blocked certain natural affects and made sure ‘that, given such or such motions of animal spirits, these affects do not arise in the pineal gland’. In Descartes, the term ‘animal spirits’ referred to what he called ‘a certain very fine air or wind’, something entirely physical, within the human nerves, that transmitted sensations (Cottingham 1993: 1315). Finally, it was characteristic for Descartes’s theory of the image of God that this image was to be found especially in the human will—and this view as well is countered by Van Mastricht. (1) The first point goes back to Descartes’s third meditation. Here we find one of the passages in which Descartes unambiguously referred to Genesis 1:26-27 (Carraud 1990: 14): And indeed it is no surprise that God, in creating me, should have placed this idea in me to be, as it were, the mark of the craftsman stamped on his work—not that the mark need be anything distinct from the work itself. But the mere fact that God created me is a very strong basis for believing that I am somehow made in his image and likeness, and that I perceive that likeness, which includes the idea of God, by the same faculty which enables me to perceive myself (Descartes 1996: vol. 7; trans. Cottingham 1996: 35). At this stage in his book, Van Mastricht’s objection to the claim that the ‘idea of God’ is part of the image and likeness of God was merely that it was a novelty. If Descartes’s claim were true, previous centuries of Christian thought including the Bible itself would have missed a significant insight, which would imply their imperfection (Van Mastricht 1677: 476, cf. 209). In another chapter, Van Mastricht discussed the idea Dei more extensively, and specifically its Cartesian definition as an ‘image’. Here he cited Thomas Aquinas’s view that ‘God’s essence cannot be seen by any created likeness’ (Van Mastricht 1677: 204; Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae 1, q. 12, art. 2) and he agreed with Francisco Suárez, who denied ‘that there can be any entity that bears a proper and natural likeness and image of God, because such an image or likeness cannot be conceived except by a univocal agreement in that form concerning which the essence of the likeness or image is ascribed’ (Disputationes metaphysicae 30.11.31, Suárez 1861: 151; Van Mastricht 1677: 204). The crucial problem, then, with Descartes’s notion of an ‘idea of God’, given his definition of ‘ideas’ as ‘as it were the images of things’ (Meditationes de prima philosophia 3; Cottingham 1996: 25), was that it seemed to assume a univocal correspondence between the uncreated God on the one hand and created intellects on the other. In opposition to this univocity, it was Van Mastricht’s intention to uphold that God infinitely transcends all epistemological images and likenesses that created beings may have. He wrote: PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) The Image of God in Reformed Orthodoxy 89 The human being is said to be the image of God, not however a univocal image by which he represents God in all, or even the most important, perfections such as infinity, omnipotence, immutability, simplicity, etc. But [he is], if not an equivocal, then at least an analogical image (if it is permitted to use Aristotelian terms in the face of Cartesians), insofar as he comes near to the most perfect God in more, and more superior, perfections than any other creature under the moon (Van Mastricht 1677: 210). Here Van Mastricht joined a broad Reformed orthodox preference for analogy (cf. Muller 2012b). While other creatures are a ‘vestige’ (vestigium) of God, humans alone have been created with a rational soul adorned with gifts of righteousness and wisdom by which they come closer to God, thus bearing His image. Still, this close proximity of the unfallen human being and God was now carefully qualified as a non-univocal correspondence between God and man. (2) The second Cartesian view that Van Mastricht criticized with respect to the image of God concerned ‘the most important part of the divine image’: original justice (Van Mastricht 1677: 476). At this point he responded not primarily to Descartes himself but to Christoph Wittich (1625-1687), a professor of theology at Leiden University and a prominent Cartesian. Wittich taught that original righteousness had the function of blocking certain affects from arising after certain motions of spirits had been sparked. Van Mastricht quoted what Wittich had written in his Theologia pacifica: There is indeed now a battle between reason and the affects that arises from the fact that the pineal gland can be pushed from one side by the soul, from the other side by animal spirits, and that these two impulses are frequently opposed; but in the first human being this battle could not occur, because original justice could prevent that given these or those motions of spirits such affects be stirred up (Wittich 1671: 43, also quoted in Van Mastricht 1677: 476). As Wittich himself indicated, the general theory outlined in this quotation was taken from Descartes’s treatise Les passions de l’âme, 1, § 47 (1996, vol. 11: 365). The theological proviso that Wittich added did not convince Van Mastricht. If the opposition between soul and animal spirits described by Wittich was the natural situation for human beings, then it also applied to Adam before the Fall, unless he had a different nature. The function of original justice, Van Mastricht argued, was ‘not to obstruct the natural but bring it to completion’ (neque etiam justitiae erat originalis naturalia impedire, sed perficere) (Van Mastricht 1677: 476). According to Van Mastricht, this Cartesian position was essentially the same as the view defended by Roman Catholics who taught that original righteousness prevented the deeds of concupiscence but not the provenance of concupiscence as such. From their perspective, the ‘battle between flesh and spirit was not truly and in the proper sense a sin’ PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 90 GIJSBERT VAN DEN BRINK, AZA GOUDRIAAN since humans consisted of flesh and spirit and these, as a matter of fact, have opposed inclinations (Van Mastricht 1677: 460). Defending the goodness of both Creator and creation, Van Mastricht denied that original righteousness operated in contravention against created nature. For him, a crucial question was whether the stirs of animal spirits are sinful or not. If they are not sinful, perfection seemed attainable for humans; but if they are sinful while being natural, how could Cartesians deny that God is the author of sin (Van Mastricht 1677: 462)? Van Mastricht operates in line with the Leiden Synopsis here, according to which the state of integrity involved no need whatsoever to constrain affects, inclinations, or bodily members, since these were all ‘holy (sancta)’ and ‘well-ordered’ (13.38). It is the result of human sin that they became directed towards evil. (3) In the Meditationes de prima philosophia Descartes linked the image and likeness of God specifically to the human will (cf. Carraud 1990: 14): It is only the will, or freedom of choice, which I experience within me to be so great that the idea of any greater faculty is beyond my grasp; so much so that it is above all [praecipue] in virtue of the will that I understand myself to bear in some way the image and likeness of God. For although God’s will is incomparably greater than mine… nevertheless it does not seem any greater than mine when considered as will in the essential and strict sense (Meditation 4; trans. Cottingham 1996: 40). This passage is connected with the Cartesian theme of an infinite human will, which Van Mastricht discussed as well, once again mainly in response to Christoph Wittich (1677: 451-457). While Van Mastricht did not focus here on the will as a main locus of the image of God, he again criticized what he saw as an unwarranted elevation of human powers that failed to recognize the perfection and infinity of God. Wittich had asserted, in true Cartesian fashion, that the greatest resemblance (similitudo) between humans and God was found in the human will, since it was ‘in its own way infinite (suo sensu infinita)’ and the range of its possible objects equalled that of the divine will (Van Mastricht 1677: 451, quoting Wittich 1671: 94-95, and Descartes, Principia philosophiae I, § 35; 1996a: 18). In claims like these, Van Mastricht saw a manifestly deficient recognition of God’s transcendence. The Cartesian argument, he wrote, seemed to lead to the conclusion that the human will was, in fact, even greater than the divine will, since the latter did not count sin among its possible objects. Not all Cartesian theologians went as far as Wittich did. Frans Burman (1671: 382-389), for example, a professor at Utrecht, did not privilege the human will in his reflections on the image of God. The Leiden professor Abraham Heidanus likewise gave a wide-ranging explanation of what the image of God consists in (1686: 331-346). He stated, in an obvious allusion to PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) The Image of God in Reformed Orthodoxy 91 Descartes’s fourth meditation, that ‘we find above all [praecipue] in the will a certain image and likeness of God’, but the allusion does not imply much. Heidanus backed up the Cartesian comparison between the divine and the human free will by quoting Bernard of Clairvaux who stated that ‘freedom from necessity pertains equally and indifferently to God and the entire creature, both good and evil; it is as intact in the creature, in its way, as it is in the Creator, but in a more powerful way’ (1686: 338; for a comparison between Bernard and Descartes, see Marion 1993). Yet Heidanus avoided the predicate ‘infinite’ for the human will. Moreover, he stated explicitly that the divine will is ‘incomparably greater, both with respect to the joined knowledge and power in Him… and with respect to the object, because it extends to more [objects]’. Heidanus modified the Cartesian position profoundly by limiting the point of agreement between the divine and the human will to a lack of external coercion (a nulla Vi externa Nos ad id [namely, to deny or affirm whatever is proposed by the intellect] determinari sentiamus; 1686: 338). Natural Law and the State of Integrity We now move on to a slightly later stage in the history of Protestant Orthodoxy. In the early eighteenth century, the Rostock professor Zacharias Grapius (1671-1713), a Lutheran theologian who was well informed about Reformed theology, published a series of treatises on theological controversies. In one of these books, Theologia recens controversa continuata, he devoted a chapter to disputed questions on the image of God. One of the chapters concerned the question ‘Whether natural law had a place in the state of integrity?’ (Grapius 1714: 132-134). As Grapius explained, the question was provoked by a treatise published in 1684 by a Dutch jurist, Willem van der Muelen, namely Dissertationes de origine juris naturalis et societatis civilis. Van der Muelen (1659-1739) was in his day a well-known Utrecht patrician and legal scholar. In an analysis of his political ideas, E. H. Kossmann described him as ‘an orthodox Gomarist thinker and an Orangist who was no longer familiar with traditional Calvinistic political theory’, adopting, in an eclectic manner, ideas from John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Baruch Spinoza, Hugo Grotius, and Samuel Pufendorf (Kossmann 2000: 95-109, there 108). In his 1684 dissertation on the origin of natural law, Van der Muelen argued that natural law, being the ‘dictate of right reason’, involved a ‘distinction between lawful and unlawful, good and evil’ (1684: 5). In the state of integrity, nothing was unlawful, and therefore, argued Van der Muelen, there was no natural law either. Humans in the state of integrity had no knowledge of good, since they could not have knowledge of evil—good and evil being known from their opposite. Since in the state of integrity the contrast between good and evil was unknown, there was no natural law either (1684: 5). In the state of integrity humans lived in accordance with that which has later been PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 92 GIJSBERT VAN DEN BRINK, AZA GOUDRIAAN called the natural law ‘from a pure natural impulse’ (1684: 16). Accordingly, the creation of man in the image of God did not consist in ‘a knowledge of good or evil, or in the distinction between just and unjust’, but rather ‘in this perfect disposition of the soul by which he always wanted whatever pleased to God his Creator and corresponded to the integrity of his nature’ (1684: 58). Grapius narrated that Van der Muelen’s theory provoked academic responses from Simon Henricus Musaeus, a legal scholar at Kiel, and from Valentin Alberti, a theology professor at Leipzig (Grapius 1714: 132). Van der Muelen defended his views against their criticisms. Grapius himself joined the fray in 1715, rejecting Van der Muelen’s view for several reasons. Since natural law is ‘the eternal and immutable truth of God (Romans 1:25)’, it must have been valid in paradise as well. Likewise, since natural law has been written on the human heart (Romans 2:5), it must have existed before the Fall already. Natural law, moreover, is usually considered a remnant of the image of God and accordingly it must have belonged to the first humans as well, since they were created in God’s image (1715: 133). For Grapius, then, the inherent integrity of created human nature was inconceivable without the implied norm of natural law. While Van der Muelen received a critical response from the side of German Lutheran scholars, in Dutch Reformed theology his views seem to have attracted little attention. Van der Muelen is not mentioned in the bibliographies of eighteenth-century discussions of the image of God in Martinus Vitringa (1762: 153-159) and Bernhardinus de Moor (1765: 20-52). The Reformed jurist Ulrik Huber (1636-1694), however, paid attention to the question, referring to the Reformed theologian Herman Witsius for a brief refutation of the view ‘that there has not been in the proper sense a law before the Fall’ (Witsius 1685: 17). Without mentioning Van der Muelen by name, Huber refuted in his Digressiones Justinianae the author of the dissertation De origine juris naturalis (Huber 1696: 413). Van der Muelen had argued that where vice is absent there is no use for laws either since their function is to suppress vice. Huber retorted that in the state of integrity there was, still, a ‘law’ not to eat from the tree of good and evil, which would be impossible if Van der Muelen were right. Huber also denied Van der Muelen’s claim that Adam had no knowledge of good or evil but acted well simply by impulse and inclination. Before transgressions were actually committed, Huber argued, human conscience prescribed ‘what was to be done but also what was not to be done’, which is in fact the natural law. Punishment was not unknown in Paradise, both explicitly in the form of the divine threat and implicitly from ‘the understanding and consequence of the divine command’. According to Huber, righteous rational deliberations on what should be done or avoided are part of the image of God. In support of this view Huber referred to a PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) The Image of God in Reformed Orthodoxy 93 number of authoritative texts: Paul wrote about a human being that ‘has been created in the likeness to God… in righteousness and holiness of truth’ (Ephesians 3:24) or ‘in knowledge, according to the image of his Creator’ (Colossians 3:10). Cicero, too, after having ‘discussed a lot about the excellence and divinity of reason, finally concludes: there is, therefore, a likeness of the human being with God’ (Huber 1696: 413; cf. Huber 1708: 5-6). For Huber, then, the image of God, being inherently characterized by righteousness and the knowledge thereof, could not be conceived without a natural law. Here, Huber explicitly defended the view that was implicit within Reformed orthodoxy as a whole (cf. Van Drunen 2010: 161-162). Conclusion In this contribution, we briefly explored a core topic of Reformed orthodox theological anthropology, viz. its treatment of the human being as created in the image of God. First, we analyzed the locus of the imago Dei in the Leiden Synopsis Purioris Theologiae (1625) in order to find a general picture. Second, we highlighted some special accents in later Reformed orthodox treatments of this topic in response to the budding Cartesianism. In particular, the human being’s close proximity to God that is implied by the imago was carefully distinguished from a univocal correspondence between God and man as it was upheld by Descartes; also, the Cartesian suggestion that original justice blocked certain natural impulses in order to let the opposed impulses of the soul prevail, was rejected (along with earlier medieval and Roman Catholic accounts to the effect that sin did not radically distort these natural impulses). Third, in response to the denial of this connection in the eclectic philosophical milieu of late Orthodoxy, the image of God was explicitly related to the concept of natural law. These later debates reveal, as major theological concerns, the intention to avoid a univocal interpretation of the image of God and to define the state of integrity as a morally good one that included human knowledge of the natural law. Despite the limited selection of voices we could make heard, it seems safe to conclude that, just as has been established with regard to other loci (cf. Muller 2003), Reformed orthodox thought on the imago Dei exhibits a variegated pattern of extensions, elaborations, and qualifications of earlier accounts within a clearly discernable overall continuity. Bibliography Burman F (1671) Synopsis theologiae, et speciatim oeconomiae foederum Dei, ab initio saeculorum usque ad consummationem eorum, volume 1. Utrecht: Cornelius Jacobus Noenard. Calvin J (1960) Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by Ford L. Battles. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 94 GIJSBERT VAN DEN BRINK, AZA GOUDRIAAN Carraud V (1990) Les références scripturaires du corpus cartésien. In Bulletin Cartésien XVIII, Archives de philosophie 53(1): 11-21. Cortez M (2010) Theological Anthropology. A Guide for the Perplexed. London: T&T Clark. Cottingham J (1993) A Descartes Dictionary. Oxford: Blackwell. Cottingham J (1996) René Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy. With Selections from the Objections and Replies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Descartes R (1996a) Principia philosophiae. In Adam C and Tannery P (eds), Oeuvres de Descartes, volume 8. Paris: Vrin. Descartes R (1996b) Les passions de l’âme. In Adam C and Tannery P (eds), Oeuvres de Descartes, volume 11. Paris: Vrin. Goudriaan A (2006) Reformed Orthodoxy and Philosophy, 1625-1750. Gisbertus Voetius, Petrus van Mastricht, and Anthonius Driessen. Leiden: Brill. Goudriaan A (2011) The Synod of Dordt on Arminian Anthropology. In Goudriaan A and Van Lieburg F (eds) Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (16181619). Leiden: Brill, pp. 81-106. Grapius Z (1714) Theologia recens controversa continuata. Rostock: Nicolaus Schwiegerovus. Heidanus A (1686) Corpus theologiae christianae, in quindecim locos digestum, volume 1. Leiden: Jordanus Luchtmans & Joannes de Vivié. Helm P (2011) ‘Structural Indifference’ and Compatibilism in Reformed Orthodoxy. Journal of Reformed Theology 5(2): 184-205. Heppe H (1978) Reformed Dogmatics Set Out and Illustrated from the Sources, revised and edited by Ernst Bizer. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. Huber U (1696) Digressiones Justinianae. Franeker: Jacobus Horreus. Huber U (1708) De jure civitatis libri tres. Frankfurt & Leipzig: Joh. Fredericus Zeitler. Kossmann EH (2000) Political Thought in the Dutch Republic. Three Studies. Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen. Marion J-L (1993) L’image de la liberté. In Brague R (ed) Saint Bernard et la philosophie. Paris: PUF, pp. 49-72. Mastricht P van (1677) Novitatum cartesianarum gangraena, nobiliores plerasque corporis theologici partes arrodens et exedens. Amsterdam: Janssonius-Waesbergen. Moor B de (1765) Commentarius perpetuus in Johannis Marckii Compendium theologiae christianae didactico-elencticum, volume 3. Leiden: Johannes Hasebroek. Muller R (2003) Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, volumes 1-4. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Muller R (2012a) Calvin and the Reformed Tradition. On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) The Image of God in Reformed Orthodoxy 95 Muller R (2012b) Not Scotist. Understandings of Being, Univocity, and Analogy in Early Modern Reformed Thought. Reformation and Renaissance Review 14(2): 127-150. Muller R (2016) Directions in the Study of Early Modern Reformed Thought. Perichoresis 14(2): 3-16. Neele AC (2009) Petrus van Mastricht (1630-1706). Reformed Orthodoxy: Method and Piety. Leiden: Brill. Strohm C (1996) Ethik im frühen Calvinismus. Humanistische Einflüsse, philosophische, juristische und theologische Argumentationen sowie mentalitätsgeschichtliche Aspekte am Beispiel des Calvin-Schülers Lambertus Danaeus. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Suárez F (1861) Disputationes metaphysicae. In Berton C (ed) Opera Omnia, volume 26. Paris: Ludovicus Vivès. Sytsma D (2013) The Logic of the Heart: Analyzing the Affections in Early Reformed Orthodoxy. In Ballor JJ, Sytsma DS, Zuidema J (eds) Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism. Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of a Theological Tradition. Leiden: Brill, pp. 471-488. Te Velde D et al., eds (2015) Synopsis Purioris Theologiae / Synopsis of a Purer Theology. Latin Text and English Translation, volume 1: Disputations 123. Leiden: Brill. Van Asselt WJ et al., eds (2010) Reformed Thought on Freedom: The Concept of Free Choice in Early Modern Reformed Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Van den Belt H and Sinnema D (2012) The Synopsis Purioris Theologiae (1625) as a Disputation Cycle. Church History and Religious Culture 92(4): 505-537. Van den Brink G and Smits J (2015) The Reformed Stance. Distinctive Commitments and Concerns. Journal of Reformed Theology 9(4): 325-347. Van den Brink G and Van der Kooi C (2017) Christian Dogmatics. An Introduction. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Van der Kooi C (2005) As in a Mirror. John Calvin and Karl Barth on Knowing God. Leiden: Brill. Van der Muelen G (1684) Dissertationes de origine juris naturalis et societatis civilis. Utrecht: Johannes vande Water. Vandervelde G (1975) Original Sin. Two Major Trends in Contemporary Roman Catholic Reinterpretation. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Van Drunen D (2010) Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms. A Study in the Development of Reformed Social Thought. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Vitringa M (1762) Doctrina christianae religionis, per aphorismos summatim descripta, volume 2. Leiden: Joannes le Mair. Williams A (1948) The Common Expositor. An Account of the Commentaries on Genesis 1527-1633. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 96 GIJSBERT VAN DEN BRINK, AZA GOUDRIAAN Witsius H (1685) De oeconomia foederum Dei cum hominibus libri quatuor. Leeuwarden: Jacobus Hagenaar. Wittich C (1671) Theologia pacifica, in qua varia problemata theologica inter Reformatos theologos agitari solita ventilantur. Leiden: Arnold Doude. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) Perichoresis Volume 14. Issue 3 (2016): 97-116 DOI: 10.1515/perc-2016-0018 THE RELEVANCE OF REFORMED SCHOLASTICISM FOR CONTEMPORARY SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY DOLF TE VELDE* Kampen Theological University ABSTRACT. This article examines how Reformed scholasticism can be relevant for systematic theology today. ‘Reformed Scholasticism’ denotes the academic practice in which the doctrines of the Reformation are expounded, explained, and defended. It is primarily a method and attitude in search of the truth, based on a careful reading of Scripture, drawing on patristic and medieval traditions, and interacting with philosophy and other academic disciplines. In addition to these methodological features, important contributions on various doctrinal topics can be discovered. The doctrine of God has a foundational role in the sense that God is the primary subject of the other topics (creation, salvation, etc.). Reformed scholastic theology not only examines God’s inner essence, but also the concrete relation and operation of God toward his world. In a Trinitarian understanding of God’s essence, a distinction is maintained between God’s immanent relatedness as three divine Persons, and his outward relation to created reality. The doctrines of creation and providence gave occasion for Reformed scholastics to engage in debates with the emerging natural sciences, and also articulated important theological insights concerning the involvement of God in creaturely affairs. In Christology, the Reformed orthodox maintained the classic doctrine of the two natures of Jesus Christ, against Socinians and other opponents. These ontological statements are the necessary conditions for a proper understanding of the salvation by Christ. While the doctrinal positions of Reformed scholastic theology cannot be automatically transmitted to contemporary discussions, we can profit from this tradition on several levels of method and content. KEY WORDS: Scholasticism, Holy Scripture, Trinity, Creation, Christology Introduction The past two or three decades witness a strong revival of interest in the theology of Protestant scholasticism (Trueman and Clark 1999/2007). In the United States, Richard A. Muller pioneered toward a groundbreaking reappreciation of Reformed scholastic theology on the basis of a comprehensive study of the sources (see especially Muller 2003a). At the same time, members of the theological department of Utrecht University, the Netherlands, developed their own tradition of research, directed by Antonie Vos and Willem J. * DOLF TE VELDE (PhD 2010, Kampen Theological University) is associate professor of systematic theology at Kampen Theological University, the Netherlands, and associate professor of historical theology at the Evangelical Theology Faculty, Leuven, Belgium. Email: rttevelde@kampen.nl. © EMANUEL UNIVERSITY of ORADEA PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 98 DOLF TE VELDE van Asselt, and now hosted by the Institute for Post-Reformation Studies at the Evangelical Theology Faculty Leuven. It is no exaggeration to state that the field of Post-Reformation studies has been completely renewed. In recent years, the fruits of the deepened historical understanding of the Reformed scholastic tradition are harvested in what becomes discernable as a ‘theology of retrieval’ or ‘ressourcement’. While in Catholic theology this tendency dates back to the nouvelle théologie of Jean Daniélou, Henri de Lubac, and others (cf. Boersma 2009), a theology of retrieval made its entry in Protestantism only recently (Williams 1999; Webster 2007; Crisp 2010; Allen and Swain 2015). Characteristic of the retrieval movements is that they consider the conscious connection to the theological tradition of vital importance for the church today: the insights stored in the theological literature of past centuries have not been antiquated, but are still valuable as articulations of the Christian faith. A second tendency in recent theology to which the study of Post-Reformation orthodoxy is connected is the emergence of ‘analytic theology’. As Oliver D. Crisp describes, the development of analytic theology as a discernable approach to systematic theology represents a next phase in analytic philosophy of religion, which was in turn a specific application of analytic philosophy as such (Crisp 2011). Included in the ‘rhetorical style’ intended by analytic theologians are the ‘intellectual virtues’ of clarity, simplicity, and brevity, accompanied by logical rigor and conceptual analysis (Rea 2009: 3). In many respects, this recent movement resumes important insights, questions, distinctions, and arguments developed during the scholastic phases of theology in the Middle Ages and Early Modernity. In what follows, I will give a brief introduction to the historical phenomena labeled as ‘Reformed orthodoxy’ or ‘Reformed scholasticism’. I will indicate important aspects of the method and attitude of scholastic Reformed theology. The substantial contribution of insights from Reformed scholasticism on different fields of doctrine (doctrine of God, Trinity, creation and providence, Christology) will be discussed. The conclusion makes a statement on the continuing relevance of scholastic Reformed theology for today. Preliminary Definitions In this article, the term ‘Reformed orthodoxy’ and cognates will be used interchangeably with ‘Reformed scholasticism’. Reformed scholasticism refers to a form of theology that is historically situated in the period from ca. 1560 to 1750, is embedded in the confessional and institutional identity of the emerging churches of the Reformed strand of Protestantism, is qualified by the application of a specific method deemed suitable for instruction, inquiry, and discussion on an academic level, and refers to a body of texts written in PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) The Relevance of Reformed Scholasticism for Contemporary Systematic Theology 99 the distinct genres of ‘question’ and ‘disputation’. Within the different ecclesial contexts, various types of scholastic theology were developed (cf. Trueman and Clark 1999/2007): Lutheran, Catholic (with as its foremost subtypes: Thomist, Scotist, and Jesuit forms of scholasticism), and Reformed. ‘Scholasticism’ is closely related to ‘orthodoxy’, that is, the stage of the Protestant churches (mainly Lutheran and Reformed) following the initial Reformation, in which their confessional identities were shaped and codified, and in which the Reformation turned from a protest movement into a set of well-established, separate ecclesiastical institutions (Muller 2003b: 33-36). Within the larger development of Orthodoxy, scholasticism is properly located in the context of the schools: it is theology as taught and developed in the classroom setting. The basic pattern of scholastic discourse is the question (quaestio): a clear presentation of the issue under discussion, followed by arguments pro and contra, and a solution by means of definitions and distinctions that respond to the initially stated positions (Muller 2003b: 27). Since the first half of the 20th century, the emergence of scholastic theology in the churches of the Reformation was often characterized as a ‘decline’ from the genuine, evangelical insights of the Reformation (cf. Van Asselt and others 2011: 14-20). In fact, the notion of ‘emergence’ or ‘re-introduction’ overlooks the fact that scholastic ways of doing theology have never been absent from the Reformational movements, both Lutheran and Reformed. From the start, Reformers with a more humanist outlook such as John Calvin were accompanied by theologians like Wolfgang Musculus, Peter Martyr Vermigli, Jerome Zanchi and others, who consciously operated in the scholastic traditions of biblical exegesis, doctrinal studies, and ethics (cf. Muller 2003a: 1:52-67). From the 1540s onwards, the deployment of scholastic approaches in Reformed theology was stimulated by three factors of practical necessity: confession, polemics, and education. Let me briefly explain each of these in turn. Next to the Augsburg Confession authored by Philip Melanchthon, several groups of churches in Switzerland, Germany, France, the Netherlands, and the British Isles formulated their own doctrinal standards. Though different in genre from the properly academic forms of scholastic discourse, these confessional documents that were mainly produced from the 1520s to the 1570s witness a comprehensive and systematic grasp of the main points of the Christian faith, which is expounded both positively and polemically. The formation of confessional identities was accompanied by the need for a polemical defense of doctrine. During the sixteenth century, the Reformed theologians constantly felt obliged to explain and justify their positions over against the Catholic Church, and later on also in response to Lutheran theology, concerning issues such as Scripture versus tradition, justification and PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 100 DOLF TE VELDE grace, the sacraments, Christology and predestination. All these fields of doctrinal debate required the abilities of logical reasoning, of conceptual analysis of the relevant parts of Scripture, as well as a profound knowledge of the patristic and medieval traditions to which most parties wished to appeal. The third factor that was instrumental in the rapid rise of scholastic forms of Reformed theology is the training of new generations of ministers of the Word. Soon after the Reformation, it was felt that for the transmission of the Reformed faith a system of methodical instruction was needed. For this purpose, new institutions of higher education were founded all over Europe, starting with the Genevan Academy in 1559 and the almost simultaneous ‘Calvinist’ reconstruction of the University of Heidelberg during the years 1558-1561, and soon followed by the foundation of Leiden University in 1575 and similar academies in Herborn, Franeker, Steinfurt, Saumur, and other places. In fact, these schools provided the natural and proper context for scholastic theology of a Reformed signature. In sum, the revival of scholastic ways of doing theology since the 1550s was the natural and indispensable sequel to the formative decades of the Reformation since 1517. In order to survive, the newly discovered insights and approaches had to be expounded, transmitted, and defended in a sophisticated and well-structured manner. Method and Attitude As the above sketch makes clear, scholastic theology is in itself not identical with a particular set of doctrinal positions. Rather, it is an argumentative approach to the investigation, exposition, clarification, and defense of Christian doctrine. Already in this sense, understood as a method and an attitude, the scholastic Reformed theology of the orthodox era is helpful for present-day systematic theology in many respects: First, engaging in Reformed orthodox theology is a means of staying connected to the Catholic tradition of Christianity. From the beginning of the Reformation movements in the 17th century, Protestants have attempted to maintain a vital connection to the broad Christian tradition stretching back to the early church. In this regard, the formation of a scholastic type of theology is a strong expression of the desire to stand in a universal and ecumenical community of faith and doctrine (cf. the essays collected in Van Asselt and Dekker 2001). Compared to medieval culture, the early modern period shows the emergence of a stronger sense of individuality. Still, the development of Reformed scholastic theology was not the effort of a few individuals. It was a multi-centered enterprise of academic institutions in which scholars co-operated for the sake of creating a common, supra-personal understanding of the Christian doctrines. Just as in medieval scholasticism, the Protestant scholastics of PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) The Relevance of Reformed Scholasticism for Contemporary Systematic Theology 101 the early modern era worked in the sphere of a ‘unified science’ (Vos 2001): a common level of understanding in terms of concepts, argumentative strategies, and presuppositions, which enabled the exchange of ideas beyond the boundaries of confession, profession, and nationality. The Catholic or ecumenical dimension of the scholastic way of doing theology safeguards against personal individualism, and also against ecclesial or confessional narrow-mindedness. To be sure, theologians of the Orthodox era would normally hold consciously to the confessional boundaries that were established between Protestants and Catholics, and also between Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists, and others. At the same time, however, precisely because scholastic theologians on different sides of the confessional borders did care about the truth claims implied in their doctrinal positions, they insisted on the need of debate with opponents from other churches and traditions in which we can often discern a genuine exchange of arguments on the common basis of Scripture and tradition. Second, a further point of continuing relevance of Reformed scholasticism lies in its appeal to Scripture as the foundational source and norm of doctrine. In popular understanding, the Reformation of the 16th century is seen as a radical break with the preceding theology of the Middle Ages, generating— in close company with the humanist movement toward the sources (ad fontes)—an entirely new understanding of the message of the Bible. Indeed, the different strands of the Reformation departed from an interpretation of Catholic doctrine in which the written or unwritten tradition of the church was placed on a par with Scripture as authoritative norms of faith and life. A a representative exposition of the Reformed doctrine of Scripture, in critical engagement with Roman Catholic theology can be found in the Synopsis purioris theologiae of 1625 (Te Velde and others 2014: 48-149). The emphasis on the sola Scriptura principle issuing from the Reformation, however, obfuscates the underlying continuities (Muller 2003a, vol. 2 passim). It fails to do justice to the permanent practice of reading the Scriptures—devotionally and professionally—which forms the natural embedding of theology throughout the Middle Ages. Much of the concepts, distinctions, and arguments deployed by scholastic thinkers were occasioned by the need to clarify questions arising from biblical texts and other authorities. The development of early Reformed scholastic theology manifests a similar grounding in the authority and exposition of Scripture. During the first and second generations of Reformers, we can detect a two-way relationship between Scripture and doctrine. First, detailed exegesis examines individual texts and derives more general doctrinal points from them; this is the original genesis and meaning of loci communes (‘common places’) as evidenced in many sixteenth century biblical commentaries by, e.g., Bucer, Vermigli, Zanchi. Second, the loci communes thus found are further investigated in their conceptual PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 102 DOLF TE VELDE meaning, implications, and relations, a procedure in which the biblical evidence recurs in a different form (the legitimacy of this second procedure was advocated by, for example, Ursinus and Zanchi). Given this state of affairs, Richard Muller has argued that what may appear to be uncritical ‘proof texting’ in dogmatic handbooks or disputations does in fact reflect a tradition of careful exegetical analysis (Muller 2003a: 2:113). Third, theology in the era of Reformed orthodoxy did consciously occupy its place in the universities and other academic institutions of Early Modernity. In fact, the theological faculties often were among the first and foremost departments of the young universities. Theology in the Reformed orthodox era understood itself as part of the academic culture of the time, and thus was involved in the common quest for truth. Principally, Reformed theology endorsed the view that all truth is in the final analysis one (on this principle as advocated by Bartholomaeus Keckermann, see Muller 2003b: 122-136). For that reason, it could not evade the responsibility of demonstrating and clarifying the doctrinal contents in an argumentative way. The strong incentive to make the contents of faith understandable in relation to other domains of knowledge produced a form of theology that can still be useful to the field of apologetics, both to clarify the implications of the Christian faith and to refute objections which are often based on misunderstandings or on problematic logical premises. It is important to note that the Reformed scholastic insistence on the principal harmony of faith and reason differs from the early Socinian claim (which was later commonly held by other rationalists) that the truths of faith may be ‘above reason’ (supra rationem), but are never ‘against reason’ (contra rationem). While the Socinians gave in fact the primacy to human reason as an independent judge of truth, and rejected classic doctrines such as Trinity and Christology on rational grounds, the Reformed scholastics took the revealed truths of faith as their starting point, and on this basis attempted to demonstrate the rational intelligibility and consistency of these articles (Te Velde 2013: 100-106). The interaction between theology and the other disciplines was multi-faceted. The relation to philosophy, in particular, has received much attention in recent historiography. The popular impression that Reformed theologians defended a backward approach, clinging to an antiquated Aristotelian philosophy while the tides were turning to the new philosophies of the Enlightenment, deserves some refinement and correction. During the 15th and 16th centuries, many discoveries were made into the original writings of Aristotle, and new versions of ‘Aristotelian’ philosophy were devised by—among others—Philip Melanchthon, Francesco Suarez, Clemens Timpler, and Johann Heinrich Alsted. These early modern systems of philosophy—drawing on PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) The Relevance of Reformed Scholasticism for Contemporary Systematic Theology 103 medieval models—were intentionally developed in accordance with the central tenets of the Christian faith (cf. Frank and Selderhuis 2012). When the famous debates between philosophers such as René Descartes and Baruch Spinoza and Reformed theologians started in the middle of the 17th century, considerable theological interests were at stake. Judged by the standards of that time, the new philosophical ideas promoted by Descartes and others were far from rationally self-evident; they could be countered by arguments that even in retrospect laid bare serious weaknesses and antinomies of the nouvelle philosophie (Verbeek 1992; Goudriaan 1999). Doctrinal Substance In addition to the general relevance of Reformed orthodox theology in terms of method and attitude, it is also profitable to be acquainted with this tradition of theology because of the insights developed in several areas of doctrine. Within the limits of this article, we will survey four fields of doctrine: the doctrine of God, of the Trinity, of creation and providence, and Christology— leaving unmentioned the many other valuable insights which might be found in some many other loci. The Doctrine of God This part of doctrine is particularly well researched in recent Post-Reformation studies (Muller 2003a, vol. 3; Beck 2007; Te Velde 2013, part I; Rehnman 2013). Because of its foundational status, the concepts and arguments developed in the doctrine of God have a regulative function for the other loci. Although Reformed theology does not follow a fixated order of doctrines, there is a fairly common practice to start with Scripture as the ‘cognitive foundation’ and the doctrines of God and Trinity as the ‘primary subject’ of theology. Most authors then continue with a roughly historical sequence of creation—sin—Christology—salvation—Church and sacraments— civil life—eschatology. In relation to these topics, theology proper has a foundational function in a number of respects: First, the doctrine of the divine names provides the starting point and serves as an elementary theory of the knowability of God. It is stated that we can know God only because God reveals his own name(s) in Scripture. The biblical names of God are interpreted as signifying either God’s essence or God’s properties. Among the biblical foundations, the revelation to Moses of the divine name YHWH (Exodus 3 and 6), and the divine self-portrait in Exodus 34, stand out as sources of revealed insight in God’s being. The Reformed orthodox theory of ‘knowing God’ consists of two complementary insights. On the one hand, it points to the inadequacy of our knowledge of God due to our limited capacity of understanding. The difference between Creator and creature, strongly increased by human sinfulness, makes it impossible PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 104 DOLF TE VELDE for us to have full and adequate knowledge of God. On the other hand, the Reformed orthodox reject religious agnosticism and advocate the possibility of a positive knowledge of God on the basis of gracious, supernatural revelation. The combination of these two insights results in a nuanced position— echoing medieval scholastic discussions and distinctions—in the question how creaturely concepts can be predicated of God: the road taken in predicating terms of God is neither equivocal nor univocal, but analogous. There is both a decisive difference and a certain similarity in the application of terms to God and creatures (cf. Te Velde 2013: 114-124, 246-247). Secondly, the Reformed orthodox reflect on the existence and essence of God. In general, they hold the existence of God to be self-evident. In the context of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, theoretical atheism as the deliberate denial of (the possibility of) God’s existence was not a live option. The proofs for the existence of God mostly presented by the Reformed orthodox are taken from causality, order, and universal consent. In combination with the causal argument, medieval argumentations in more ontological and modal terms (Anselm, Duns Scotus) are reiterated as well. The Reformed orthodox discussion of God’s existence shows that they had to face new philosophical and cultural movements (Socinianism, Cartesianism, Spinoza, Hobbes) that openly or implicitly undermined the former universal consent of the people (consensus gentium) on this point (Goudriaan 1999: passim; Te Velde 2013: 124-127; Muller 2003a: 3:170-195). In that connection, it should be welcomed that in our time where the denial of God’s existence has become en vogue, the tradition of natural theology and of theistic proofs is continued, mainly by analytic philosophers and theologians. Rather than providing straightforward ‘evidence’ for the existence of God, these arguments may help us articulate some of the rational implications for our worldview of either the acceptance or the denial of God. In discussing the essence of God, the Reformed orthodox maintain the importance of the term ‘essence’ or ‘nature’, although they acknowledge that no complete definition of God’s essence can be given. Part of the urgency for Reformed orthodoxy to maintain the ‘essence’ language is the confrontation with the Socinians, who effectively dissolved the divine essence into its separate operations and effects (cf. Te Velde 2012). The descriptions of God’s essence given by Reformed orthodox authors mostly include a Trinitarian formula, and the enumeration of basic attributes such as uniqueness, spirituality, simplicity, eternity, wisdom, goodness, and power. Third, the doctrine of the divine attributes elaborates the statements on God’s essence. It is made clear that no real distinction can be made between God’s essence and his attributes. This denial of real differences—as a difference between two separate ‘things’—within God’s essence does not prevent PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) The Relevance of Reformed Scholasticism for Contemporary Systematic Theology 105 Reformed orthodoxy from discussing God’s attributes in mostly two (sometimes three or four) groups (Muller 2003a: 3:195-226; Te Velde 2013: 129138). The first sort of attributes (incommunicable) circumscribes the essence of God as different from created reality. God is free from the compositions that characterize creatures; God is not dependent on anything outside Godself; God is without limits and thus free from temporal and spatial boundaries; God is not subject to changes; God is, in one word, perfect. Although the formal outlook of this part of the doctrine of God is negative (the negations of created properties dominate), it results in a highly positive concept of God as a Being that is superior to all classifications and limitations we can think of. In discussing these attributes we see the Reformed orthodox struggle with concepts such as causality, essence and existence, incomprehensibility, space and time, resulting in the insight that the standard Aristotelian categories of thought fail to apply in relation to God. The second group of attributes (communicable) consists of divine properties that in some degree resemble qualities in creatures. Because of the unity of God’s essence, the attributes of the second group are qualified by the preceding properties, especially simplicity, aseity, and immutability. An important function of this second group is to express the way in which God relates to the world outside Godself. Often, the initial attribute of this group is the life of God, the analysis of which provides the subsequent trichotomy in knowledge, will, and power. The prominent inclusion of God’s life among the attributes of the second group contradicts the suggestion that the scholastic concept of God is static and lifeless. The analysis of God’s life into the three ‘faculties’ of knowledge, will, and power, follows a long tradition of theology that applies the Aristotelian division of the human (psychological) faculties to God. Basic to this theory is the elementary insight that God knows, wills, and can do things. These concrete acts presuppose a threefold capacity which God always has at his disposal. Each of these has some attributes added to it; especially the ‘affects’ or ‘virtues’ adjacent to God’s will receive considerable attention. The extensive discussion of these affects shows at once the strong motive to incorporate into the doctrine of God all elements of the biblical testimony concerning God, and the soteriological motive to describe the attributes of God that directly affect humanity in the course of salvation (justice, grace, mercy). The abiding importance of the Reformed scholastic account of the doctrine of God can be indicated in the following points: 1. While clearly based on the concrete self-revelation of God in Scripture, it takes up the challenge of thinking through the implications of the biblical statements in terms of ontological concepts and their logical PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 106 DOLF TE VELDE relations, both internally—analyzing and relating the notions connected to the nature or essence of God—and externally—in view of God’s operations toward the created world. In doing so, Reformed orthodox theology accounts for the coherence and intelligibility of the Christian speech about God. 2. The Reformed scholastic positions on the possibility of providing arguments for God’s existence present a warning against an overly optimistic valuation of the human mind’s capacity for grasping the truth of God. At the same time, since in our times the need of an apologetic explanation of the Christian belief is urgently felt, the arguments for the existence of God as developed in Reformed orthodox theology can be revitalized. For our atheistic or agnostic contemporaries, it does make sense to be confronted with the consequences of the denial of God for our understanding of ourselves and the world. 3. A specific field of apologetics lies in the conversation with other religions. While the interreligious dialogue has many epistemological, spiritual, and doctrinal aspects, the question ‘Who is the God who is worshipped in this particular religion?’ deserves a central place. The elaborate doctrine of divine attributes provides a set of properties by which the deities of other religions can be examined and compared to the God of the Bible. On a closer look, the classic Reformed doctrine of God does not endorse a general, religiously neutral concept of ‘God’, but reflects the character of the Triune God as revealed in the history of Israel and, ultimately, in the incarnation of the Son of God. We can also spell out the spiritual and practical implications of differences in the basic conceptions of deity in relation to, for example, prayer and ethical conduct. 4. As the above sketch has made clear, it is not true that the Reformed scholastic doctrine of God yields a static, abstract picture of an ‘unmoved Mover’. Large portions of theological discussion are devoted exactly to the active relation of God to his world. At the same time, Reformed orthodoxy maintains that God’s external operations are rooted in and governed by his own inner being. In this connection, the incommunicable attributes of God function as the ontological prerequisites of the concrete historical and relational dealings of God with his creatures. The Doctrine of the Trinity Karl Barth powerfully insisted on the doctrine of the Trinity as the basis and presupposition of all Christian doctrine (Barth 1932). Following his lead, and encouraged by Karl Rahner, John Zizioulas, and others, many recent theologians have criticized earlier theology for a lack of Trinitarian awareness. This PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) The Relevance of Reformed Scholasticism for Contemporary Systematic Theology 107 failure affects both the sources from which concepts and ideas concerning God are taken (philosophy vs. Scripture) and the character of the Godhead itself: without the crucial notions of Trinity, God is a static, abstract and impersonal entity that can hardly be conceived as our loving Father and our gracious Savior. Is this a fair judgment? In the first place, when taking the whole of Reformed orthodox theology into consideration, it is obvious that these theologians subscribed to the doctrine of the Trinity as strongly as any recent defendant. The Reformed scholastics fully incorporated the classic dogma of the Trinity into their confessions and theology. Moreover, the Reformed orthodox actually had to face severe attacks on the doctrine of the Trinity in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In response to Unitarian freethinkers such as Servetus, Biandrata, Stancaro and others, outstanding theologians like Calvin himself (Baars 2004), Peter Martyr Vermigli, and Girolamo Zanchi wrote extensive treatises in order to explain and defend the doctrine of God as one essence in three Persons. Keeping to the Trinitarian Creed was not only a matter of tradition: they saw this confession as vital for the Christian faith as such. Secondly, in many places of their expositions of the doctrine of God, the Reformed orthodox do make the connection with the doctrine of the Trinity. The Reformed orthodox are very cautious in providing a definition or description of the divine essence. These descriptions often are stated in terms of ‘a most simple, infinite Spirit’, which indeed sounds fairly abstract. Immediately connected to such terms, however, we frequently find explanations in terms of ‘Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’ or ‘the God of Israel’ (cf. the material covered by Muller 2003a: 3:227-233). This indicates that even where the Reformed scholastics employed abstract terms to describe God, they kept the concrete Trinitarian existence of God in mind. Moreover, in discussing the divine attributes, they often explicitly related these to the doctrine of the Trinity, for example when it comes to God’s simplicity, independence, and perfection. Third, we should understand that Reformed theology from the sixteenth century onward opted for the locus method: the doctrinal topics are discussed in separate chapters that are loosely connected in a certain systematic order. The division and sequence of those chapters does not necessarily determine the substance of doctrine. Each locus, though connected with the others, has its own scriptural, traditional and conceptual material. With respect to the doctrines of God and of Trinity, it is clear that they belong together in examining the essence of God. At the same time, both have their specific focus and complex of problems (Muller 2003a: 3:156-159; Beck 2007: 227-232). PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 108 DOLF TE VELDE Recent Protestant theology shows a wide consensus on the necessity of connecting the doctrine of God to the doctrine of the Trinity. Reformed theology does not need to refrain from this consensus, as far as the personal identity of God is emphasized by reference to the doctrine of the Trinity. The ‘Trinitarian renaissance’ of the past three or four decades has in particular promoted various versions of social Trinitarianism (for a recent survey, see McCall 2010). Typical of the social or relational understanding of the Trinity is that not only the distinct Persons with their mutual relations receive extra attention, but that also the relational character of the Trinity is extended to us, who are as humans invited to participate in God’s Triune community. In this connection, the Reformed orthodox accounts of the Trinitarian dogma give reason for some qualifications. It is noteworthy that the great proponent of a Trinitarian theology, Karl Barth, maintained—in line with classic theology—in his doctrine of the Trinity a firm distinction between God’s own triune life as Father, Son, and Spirit—labeled by Barth as God’s ‘primary objectivity’—and his revealing himself in God’s external gracious relations and actions—God’s ‘secondary objectivity’ (Barth 1940: 15-24; for a more detailed analysis, see Te Velde 2013: 423-446). Starting from this basic conviction, Barth indeed contends that God’s internal communicative and relational character is the root and prototype of God’s communication and relatedness towards his creatures. But acknowledging the structural difference between primary and secondary objectivity or relatedness implies that the latter is not an immediate, necessary, and ontological continuation of the former. God’s gracious relationship with us rests on God’s will, and thus is not constitutive for God’s being, although it is firmly rooted in God’s essence and genuinely expresses the essential goodness of God (for a survey of the recent debates in the reception of Barth, see Dempsey 2011). For systematic theologians, it is appealing to construe coherent, symmetrical and parallel sets of ideas. Thus, one might be induced to treat the doctrine of the Trinity as a structural principle (Rahmentheorie) that can be made functional in other parts of doctrine (cf. Metzger 2005). I would, however, be cautious in doing so. The doctrine of the Trinity is the church’s answer to the specific question of how Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit relate to the God of Israel. For that reason, a certain reserve is in place when the doctrine of the Trinity is treated as the solution to the problem of unity and differentiation, or singularity and plurality, in general. In a more limited sense, insights gathered from the doctrine of the Trinity can modify or color the exposition of God’s essence and attributes. It does make sense, for example, to start the exposition of God’s knowledge and wisdom with the fact that the Son of God is God’s wisdom in person; although it is not easy to point out the full implications of this equation. The confession of God as triune prohibits the interpretation of God’s immutability as static PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) The Relevance of Reformed Scholasticism for Contemporary Systematic Theology 109 and monolithic unity. The account of divine omnipotence, as a final example, should do justice to God’s care for his creation, the suffering of Christ as the way in which God overcomes evil, and the soft irresistibility of the Spirit. Creation and Providence The doctrine of creation has been one of the central tenets of the Christian faith throughout the centuries. Of course, we cannot expect direct contributions from the Reformed scholastic doctrine of creation to the present-day debates concerning the origins of the universe and of the human species (as one among others). The momentous increase in scientific knowledge and the consequent changes in worldview and orientation make it impossible to endorse exactly the same positions as were defended in Reformed theology in the 16th to 18th centuries. On several other levels, however, the Reformed orthodox account of creation and providence contains important notions that can be fruitfully employed in a 21st century theology of creation. To begin with, the identification of the world we live in as God’s creation amounts to a principal de-sacralization of the world. The world itself is not divine or sacrosanct. The world as it exists is not eternal, nor necessary, nor unchangeable. By acknowledging the contingent and non-divine status of the created world, Christian theology in general and Reformed theology in particular stands open for free scientific research of reality in all its aspects. Early Reformed theologians such as Lambert Daneau, Girolamo Zanchi, and others incorporated extensive expositions of all God’s works in the six-day creation of the world in their theological systems. An intriguing aspect of how Reformed orthodoxy developed its theology of creation surfaces in its initial resistance to the ‘Copernican revolution’ in astronomy. Gisbertus Voetius, for one, continued to defend the rotation of the sun around the earth on the basis of an assumed Physica Mosaica, while apparently neglecting the empirical data that became gradually available for the contrary position. In defense of Voetius, we can reckon with the fact that the shift toward a heliocentric model went along with more far-reaching revisions of physics in the Cartesian movement. As Andreas Beck has argued, the new cosmology was often presented together with a denial of the ‘substantial forms’ that were fundamental to Aristotelian (meta)physics. In the eyes of Voetius and others, this package deal had disastrous theological and philosophical consequences. While Voetius had good reasons—within the academic discourse of that time—to defend a geocentric worldview, other Calvinists made the Copernican turn sooner or later with equally good—or, in hindsight, better—reasons. The fundamental issue here is not the doctrine of creation proper, but rather the hermeneutical question of how to handle the PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 110 DOLF TE VELDE tension between the apparent teaching of Scripture and the increasing evidence from the natural sciences (Beck 2007: 65-68, 86-90; Vermij 2002). Even in a context where the affirmation of creation as a divine work performed within six days a few thousands of years ago is no longer plausible, Reformed orthodox theology contributes some substantial theological insights that deserve consideration. The first regards the beginning of the world. Even if the beginning of the world cannot be determined chronologically, it remains a fundamental question whether or not the world has—absolutely speaking—a beginning. Reformed scholastic theology commonly held to the view of Augustine, ‘that God founded this world within time, He did so freely, too, and according to the good pleasure of his own will (…)— [the world] which He could have created earlier or later in time …’ (Te Velde and others 2014: 254-255). My suggestion is that even though nowadays cosmology and astronomy count with a scale of billions, not thousands of years, there are still theological (next to scientific!) reasons to insist on a temporal beginning of the world. In any case, from the almost unimaginable age of the earth according to standard chronology it does not follow that the universe is in fact without a beginning, or, theologically speaking, eternal. Connected to the statement that the world has a temporal beginning is the Reformed scholastics’ insistence on the ontological distinction between God and the created world. God exists in his own necessary way, independent from the world, eternally perfect in his own Triune life. The world, in turn, exists in a contingent way, dependent on the will of God for both its coming into existence and its continuing to exist, imperfect and finite in spite of its extension. This specific relation between God and the created world does not only account for the contingency and freedom that is essential for our creaturely existence; it also means that our lives and everything else in the universe have a goal and destination that is determined by God. The fact that God has willed us in the way we are (apart from sin), gives us a sense of purpose and of value, which the explanation of life in terms of impersonal, naturalistic evolution cannot provide. In scholastic Reformed theology, the doctrine of creation has a direct sequel in the doctrine of providence. As Andreas Rivetus puts it in the Leiden Synopsis purioris theologiae, it is not true that when God ‘had accomplished and finished everything completely, He put away from himself every care for it’ (Te Velde and others 2014: 261). In the notion of providence, the very existence of God as a personal agent is at stake: ‘since God is the cause of everything, and since every agent acts for the sake of a goal, it follows thereupon that God, who cannot be God and lack wisdom, ordains everything towards its own goal’ (Te Velde and others 2014: 265). PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) The Relevance of Reformed Scholasticism for Contemporary Systematic Theology 111 With the rise of the natural sciences, the concept of causality received a strongly immanent and determinist twist. According to the Reformed orthodox account of providence (as well as its Lutheran and Catholic counterparts), the chains of natural causes which operate according to natural laws do not exist independently: they are constituted and sustained by God’s primary causality. This means that God’s involvement as the Creator of the world need not be explained away when humans gain more knowledge of how the natural processes operate: on his own level of causality, God is the origin and warrant of all that happens, be it performed by natural or by free (personal) causes. In relation to free or personal causes, the providence of God takes a particular character. At face value, the determination and governance by God as the primary cause seems to rule out genuine freedom on the secondary level of human causality. The Reformed scholastics, however, developed a strong but nuanced view of God’s involvement in human actions. Far from destroying the freedom of the human will, the providential will of God is in fact the source from which our will derives its freedom. Because God’s creative will is most free, the created world produced by this will displays structural freedom. Humans and their free acts of will are included in God’s decree of God’s governance exactly in their nature and mode of being free and contingent (Van Asselt, Bac, Te Velde 2010). The critical test of the concept of providence comes in relation to evil. As such, the conceptual clarification aimed at by scholastic Reformed authors does not provide spiritual comfort in the face of evil. What it can provide, however, is a solution of rational problems elicited by the experience of evil, problems that affect the understanding of the relation between God and the person afflicted by evil (arguments taken from Disputation 11—On the Providence of God, in Te Velde and others 2014: 260-283). A couple of insights can be mentioned here. First, the Reformed orthodox position should be distinguished from the later, Leibnizian notion of the ‘best of all worlds’. There is no necessary connection between God’s own essential goodness and one prescribed course of good events. Since the world exists not by God’s nature, but by his will, there is a fundamental freedom of choice for God which of several ‘goods’ He is willing to actualize. Second, it is not up to us humans to determine what is good in an absolute and comprehensive sense. The Reformed scholastics state that God, by his providence, establishes a teleological order of means towards an end. This does not imply, however, that we can understand the good purposes devised by God, nor should we assume that there is a direct and uncomplicated relation between particular events and the ultimate good. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 112 DOLF TE VELDE A third element of the Reformed orthodox account of evil in view of God’s providence is to make a distinction between different ontological aspects of an evil act. Viewed apart from its moral quality, an evil act as such has the status of an entity (or event) that exists in reality, and can as such be willed by God. Insofar as these same actions, however, are morally defective, they cannot be attributed to any act of God but merely to the human agent. The fourth and perhaps most important notion dealing with the relation of providence to evil is the concept of ‘permission’ (permissio). By incorporating the notion of permission, Reformed scholastics tacitly correct John Calvin’s rejection of divine permission. Distinct from the effective will by which God wills all good things in a direct and active way, his permissive will indicates an indirect, second-order act of God towards evils things. To be sure, ‘permission’ is not the absence of willing; it should not be understood as a merely passive ‘let it go’ toward evil. At the same time, God wills, in his permission, evil only in an indirect way. By stating that God wills the occurrence—or, to put it more restrictively—the non-prevention of evil which He does not approve of, Reformed scholastic theologians propose to see the evil deeds of humans and their consequences as included in the domain of God’s providential governance, and therefore as not falling outside God’s control, while at the same time maintaining the moral perfection of God on the one hand and the moral accountability of created evildoers on the other hand. Christology In Christology, as in many other areas of Christian doctrine, the paradigms of thought have changed drastically during the last two centuries. While the Calvinist and Lutheran reformers of the 16th century, followed by their scholastic successors, continued to affirm the statements of Chalcedonian orthodoxy against the Socinians and other early rationalists, the rise of historicalcritical scholarship in biblical studies has had enormous consequences for the systematic understanding of Jesus Christ and his work (McGrath 2005). Initially, the application of source criticism to the four Gospels created a distance between what was constructed as the authentic self-understanding of the ‘historical Jesus’ and the theological affirmations developed by the first generations of his followers. On a more philosophical level, the doctrine of the unity of the divine and human natures in Christ seemed no longer intelligible or plausible, because it seemed to combine contradictory properties in one person, and because the whole way of thinking in terms of essence, natures, and properties has become obsolete. Along with the denial of the traditional Logos Christology came several proposals to understand the relation between Jesus and God in new ways, with Jesus being seen either as the ultimate moral example of love and obedience toward God, or as the unique messenger of God’s revelation, or as the ‘Son of man’ who was ‘adopted’ as PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) The Relevance of Reformed Scholasticism for Contemporary Systematic Theology 113 Son of God through the special indwelling of the Holy Spirit, or in yet another way. In this climate of modern theology, the traditional interpretation of Christology along Chalcedonian lines needs some extra explanation. Fortunately, Reformed scholastic treatments of this doctrine contain helpful insights which can enrich systematic-theological discussion today. First, the modern tendency to replace concepts of substance, nature, and properties by more existentialist, functional, and relational categories, should not be taken for granted. With some effort, the classic categories as employed in the Christological doctrine of the church can still be made understandable for contemporary audience. More importantly, the Chalcedonian insistence on Christ being ‘truly God and truly man’ (vere Deus—vere homo) requires some sort of articulation in terms of nature(s) and person. When Christ claims that ‘I and the Father are one’ (John 10:30), this should not be understood as merely a unity of will or power, but it has the underlying implication of a unity of essence or identity. Second, the Reformed scholastics did not interpret the unity of God and man in Christ as a purely abstract, ontological principle. The concrete, historical event of the incarnation was viewed as constitutive: it is through the assumptio carnis that the Son of God became man. The contingent and redemption-historical character of the incarnation prevented the Reformed orthodox (at least most of them!) from speculating about the necessity of the incarnation apart from the occurrence of sin. Along the same lines, the specific character and purpose of the unity of God and man in Christ should be maintained today against theologies that turn incarnation into a universal principle of unification between God and humanity, or that advocate a neognostic idea of a ‘Christ-spirit’ that secretly dwells within every human being. Third, the statements about the Person of Christ are inextricably linked up with the soteriological work of Christ as the Mediator of God and humankind. Not only is the incarnation of the Son of God motivated by the salvation of lost sinners, also the performance of this work of salvation and requires the specific constitution of his Person as God-and-man. As was already pointed out by Athanasius in the Arian controversy, if it is not truly God who came in Christ, the world is not truly redeemed from sin and death. The other way around, Gregory of Nazianzus (Letter to Cledonius, PG 37, 181) argued that ‘that which was not assumed, is not healed’ (quod non assumptum, non sanatum). In early medieval scholastic thought, these two lines were further elaborated by Anselm of Canterbury in his Cur Deus homo. The Reformed scholastics in turn—following the Heidelberg Catechism—stand firmly in this line of connecting Christology and soteriology. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 114 DOLF TE VELDE Conclusions Reformed orthodox theology flourished in the era between 1560 and 1750. In many respects, the cultural, ecclesiastical, and intellectual contexts of Western theology have changed drastically since those days. Still, it is worthwhile to study the writings of scholastic Reformed theologians, to explore their concepts and arguments, and to bring their insights into fruitful conversation with present-day discussions in systematic theology. Recent tendencies such as retrieval theology and analytic theology show that the approaches and techniques developed in the scholastic phase of Reformed theology are not outdated, but continue to be relevant. This is not to say that form and content of Reformed theology from the 16th and 17th centuries can be transmitted to our time on a one-by-one basis. What we can learn from scholastic Reformed theology is an open-minded, Scripture-oriented, and intellectually rigorous attitude, together with a set of substantial convictions that can still be held today as promising articulations of the Christian faith in a post-Christian, multi-religious world. Bibliography Allen M, Swain SR (2015) Reformed Catholicity. The Promise of Retrieval for Theology and Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Baars A (2004) Om Gods verhevenheid en Zijn nabijheid. De Drie-eenheid bij Calvijn. Kampen: Kok. Barth K (1932) Kirchliche Dogmatik I/1: Die Lehre vom Wort Gottes. Munich: Chr. Kaiser. Barth K (1940) Kirchliche Dogmatik II/1: Die Lehre von Gott. Zollikon: Verlag der Evangelischen Buchhandlung. Beck AJ (2007) Gisbertus Voetius (1589-1676). Sein Theologieverständnis und seine Gotteslehre. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Boersma H (2009) Nouvelle Théologie and Sacramental Ontology. A Return to Mystery. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crisp OD (2010) Retrieving Doctrine. Explorations in Reformed Theology. Milton Keynes: Paternoster. Crisp OD (2011) Analytic Theology. Expository Times 122(10): 469-477. Dempsey MT, ed (2011) Trinity and Election in Contemporary Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Frank G, Selderhuis HJ, eds (2012) Philosophie der Reformierten. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog. Goudriaan A (1999) Philosophische Gotteserkenntnis bei Suarez und Descartes im Zusammenhang mit der niederländischen reformierten Theologie und Philosophie des 17. Jahrhunderts. PhD thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Leiden. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) The Relevance of Reformed Scholasticism for Contemporary Systematic Theology 115 McCall TH (2010) Which Trinity? Whose Monotheism? Philosophical and Systematic Theologians on the Metaphysics of Trinitarian Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. McGrath AE (2005) The Making of Modern German Christology 1750-1990, second edition. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. Muller RA (2003a) Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, 4 volumes, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Muller RA (2003b) After Calvin. Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Rea MC (2009) Introduction. In Crisp OD and Rea MC (eds) Analytic Theology. New Essays in the Philosophy of Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-30. Rehnman S (2013) The Doctrine of God in Reformed Orthodoxy. In Selderhuis HJ (ed) A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, pp. 353-401. Selderhuis HJ, ed (2013) A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy. Leiden: Brill. Te Velde D (2013) The Doctrine of God in Reformed Orthodoxy, Karl Barth, and the Utrecht School. A Study in Method and Content. Leiden: Brill. Te Velde D and others, eds (2014) Synopsis purioris theologiae / Synopsis of a Purer Theology, volume 1. Leiden: Brill. Trueman CR and Clark RS, eds (1999) Protestant Scholasticism. Essays in Reassessment. Carlisle: Paternoster; reprinted as Trueman CR and Clark RS, eds (2007) Protestant Scholasticism. Essays in Reassessment. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. Van Asselt WJ and others (2011) Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed Heritage Books. Van Asselt WJ, Bac JM, and te Velde DT, eds (2010) Reformed Thought on Freedom: The Concept of Free Choice in the History of Early-Modern Reformed Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Van Asselt WJ and Dekker E, eds (2001) Reformation and Scholasticism. An Ecumenical Enterprise. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Verbeek T (1992) Descartes and the Dutch. Early Reactions to Cartesian Philosophy 1637-1650. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Vermij R (2002) The Calvinist Copernicans. The Reception of the New Astronomy in the Dutch Republic, 1575-1750. Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Academie van Wetenschapen. Vos A (2001) Scholasticism and Reformation. In Van Asselt WJ and Dekker E (eds) Reformation and Scholasticism, pp. 99-119. Webster J (2007) Theologies of Retrieval. In Webster J, Tanner K, and Torrance I (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 583-599. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016) 116 DOLF TE VELDE Williams DH (1999) Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism. A Primer for Suspicious Protestants. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. PERICHORESIS 14.3 (2016)