Reformed Scholasticism Recovering The Tools of Reformed Theology 9780567679727 9780567679758 9780567679741 Compress

Reformed Scholasticism
ii
Recovering the Tools of Reformed Theology
Ryan M. McGraw
Professor of Systematic Theology
Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary
Adjunct Professor of Doctoral Studies

Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary
T&T CLARK
Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK
1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA
BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the T&T Clark logo are

trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
First published in Great Britain 2019
Copyright © Ryan M. McGraw, 2019
Ryan M. McGraw has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work.
For legal purposes the Acknowledgments on p. x constitute an extension

of this copyright page.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording,
or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing
from the publishers.
Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for,
any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in
this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any
inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but
can accept no responsibility for any such changes.
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
ISBN: HB: 978-0-5676-7972-7

ePDF: 978-0-5676-7974-1
eBook: 978-0-5676-7973-4
Typeset by Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd.
To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com
and sign up for our newsletters.
To Dr. James E. McGoldrick
Excellent scholar, outstanding Christian, and the man who largely taught me
how to write
vi
Contents
Acknowledgments x
Part 1 Introduction
1 Introduction: Why Reformed Scholasticism? 3

Why study Reformed scholasticism? 4
Who is this book for? 7
How does this book achieve its aims? 7
Why is this book justified? 10
Conclusion 12
Part 2 Research Methodology
2 Sources: Primary 17
How to choose a topic of study 17
How to identify primary sources 24
Using primary sources to set your context 26
The language of Reformed scholastic primary sources:
Learning and using Latin 34
How to obtain primary sources 41
Some significant primary source authors 43
Conclusion 50
3 Sources: Secondary 51
How to identify relevant secondary sources 51
How to use secondary sources 60
How to obtain secondary sources 63
Conclusion 65
4 Research Methodology: Historiography and Writing Historical

Theology 67
Preliminary reflections on historiography 67
viii Contents
Toward “seeing things their way” 71

Conclusion 81
5 Writing Historical Theology 83

Outlining a project 83
Writing a project 87
Keeping track of everything 91
Conclusion 92
Part 3 The Nature of Reformed Scholasticism: Method

and Trajectories
6 General History and Terminology 95

Historical scope 95
Related historical movements 100
Related descriptive terms 113
Conclusion 119
7 A Theology of the Schools 121

The rise and development of medieval theological education 122
The early development of Protestant universities 125
The development of universities under Reformed orthodoxy 129
Conclusions: The character of the theology of the schools 135
8 A Theology in Conversation with the Entire Catholic Tradition 139

Sola scriptura not solo scriptura 139
Test case one: Amandus Polanus 141
Test case two: Francis Turretin 144
Medieval and contemporary appropriations 146
Conclusions 149
9 A Theology of Continuities and

Discontinuities 153
Continuities and developments 154
Discontinuities of method and substance? 160
Conclusions 163
Contents ix
Part 4 The Character of Reformed Scholasticism: International

Catholicity and Piety
10 International Catholicity 167

International education and teaching 167
Reformed orthodoxy in various regions of Europe 169
Conclusions 182
11 Piety 183
Piety and the nature of theology in Reformed scholasticism 183
Puritanism 187
The Dutch Nadere Reformatie 189
Conclusions 192
Part 5 Contemporary Appropriations of Reformed Scholasticism
12 What Is Next?: Personal Growth,

Theological Reflection, and Service
to the Church 197
Reflect on what you have gained 198
Remember your goals 201
Recognize potential avenues for theological and pastoral uses 205
Conclusion 213
Works Cited 215

Index 238
Acknowledgments
Scholarship is a community affair. Many more people influence the writing

of a book than an author can acknowledge or even realize. My explicit debts
include Anna Turton with Bloomsbury, who took an early interest in this
project and pushed it through to publication. Ben Castle, who is my research
assistant, student, and friend, read through an entire draft of the work,
checking references and making helpful stylistic comments. Joseph Pipa, who
is my boss now as well as a mentor, has always offered great encouragement in
my work and he sent the pebbles down the hill that got me started in academic
research. This appears to have turned into an avalanche that now has its own
momentum. John Fesko has always provided good friendship and fellowship
and often sharpens my ideas through our conversations about Reformed
scholasticism. James McGoldrick, Adriaan Neele, and Rob McCurley deserve
thanks for helping me track down some key sources and references along the
way. Dr. McGoldrick in particular has had a pivotal role in my development as
a historian and as a writer and I cannot repay him for all that I have received
through his teaching and friendship in this regard. Chad van Dixhoorn also
graciously took an interest in my initial outline and helped me fine tune and
tone down some points through some healthy constructive criticism. Keith
Mattison took great interest in this project and helped me clean up its form
significantly. David Noe assisted me with some Latin work as well. The triune
God has also sustained me through this work and I hope that he has enabled
me to give him glory through good scholarship and by giving sound advice to
others in some measure.
As always, my family is a great encouragement, especially my wife Krista.
I believe that anything worth doing is worth doing together. My wife and
children share my burdens, pray for my projects, and generally make the
Lord’s blessings more evident in life. He has kindly helped me develop the skill
of loving my work and devoting myself to it while remembering that my family
is my higher ministry and calling.
Acknowledgments xi
Ultimately, this book exists because of my students. Numerous conversations

with students from my own academic institution as well as others have
generally followed a pattern of initial awkward silence when I try to pitch my
elective course on Reformed scholasticism, followed by growing interest as I
try to convince them why they should study this subject, to excitement as its
potential payoff starts to dawn on them, concluded by a barrage of questions
related to how to get started. In this regard, my interaction with students has
largely determined the content of this book, since I seek to answer here the
most common questions that they usually have, including why to study this
subject, how to do it, and what to do with it when they are done. In this respect,
this book would not have been possible without this kind of interaction with
interested students. I teach at an institution that trains future ministers largely
because I desire to invest in the future of the church. This means investing in
people. I hope that this book gives something back to the students who have
given so much to me over the years and that it encourages a generation to
come to study classic Reformed theology.
xii
Part One
Introduction
2
1
Introduction: Why Reformed Scholasticism?
As Karl Barth asserted famously, “The fear of scholasticism is the mark of a

false prophet.”1 Reformed scholasticism is an important part of the Reformed
tradition, particularly in regard to the method of theological education and the
development of the theological system. Reformed scholasticism represents a
growing field of study today, in relation to both historical studies and Systematic
Theology. However, while many students have a growing passion for classic
Reformed theology and its methods, most of them have little introduction to
the research methodology specifically needed to study this subject effectively,
nor do theological students have a guide directing them what to do with their
academic studies once they finish them.
This book introduces the research methodology and general characteristics
of historic Reformed scholastic theology (roughly 1560–1790) to students. It
stresses scholasticism primarily as a theological method adapted to university
education, without excluding orthodoxy, which bears more directly on
content. It answers the basic questions why one would want to study Reformed
scholasticism, how they should do so, and what they can do with what they
learn once they are done.
The thesis of this work is that students of Reformed theology need to study
the scholastic roots of the Reformed orthodox tradition to understand and
to build a constructive Reformed theology. The author aims to introduce the
tools needed to study Reformed scholasticism with an ultimate view to the
1
As cited in Willem J. van Asselt et al., Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism, trans. Albert Gootjes
(Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011), 15; for similar comments by Barth, see
Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics: Set out and Illustrated from the Sources, trans. Ernst Bizer
(London: Allen, & Unwin, 1950), v–vi. In spite of such comments, in the later citation Barth added
that “a return to this orthodoxy could not be contemplated” due to what were, in his view, the
presuppositional defects of classic Reformed scholasticism/orthodoxy.
4 Reformed Scholasticism
potential benefits that such studies can offer the church today. This period was
the most important one in church history for the formulation and codification
of Reformed theology, especially in the area of prolegomena.2 However,
contemporary Reformed theology sometimes stresses theological content
to the neglect of the historic development of Reformed theological method.
Studying Reformed scholasticism can better enable students to build a
contemporary Reformed theology in conversation with its classic expressions.
This book invites students into the subject through learning how to engage
with primary source reading, to do research, and to write, while emphasizing
the importance of Latin works of classic Reformed didactic (systematic)
theology.
The material seeks to introduce students to the study Reformed scholasticism
using proper historiography, to express themselves well in writing on this topic,
to become competent scholars, and to apply what they learn to contemporary
theology and to pastoral ministry.
Why study Reformed scholasticism?
Highlighting some of the possible benefits derived from classic Reformed

theology shows why one should want to take the time to study Reformed
scholasticism.
Frist, Reformed scholasticism promotes precision and clarity in teaching,
both in the church and in the seminary.3 While scholasticism remains a
derogatory term in some circles, building on Reformed scholastic theology
can provide clarity and stability in the church and in the seminary.
Scholasticism developed precise and stable theological methods and terms.
2
Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed
Orthodoxy, Ca. 1520 to Ca. 1725, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 1:109.
3
This and the following points are expanded and adapted from Asselt et al., Introduction to Reformed
Scholasticism; See also, Dolph te Velde, “Reformed Theology and Scholasticism,” in Cambridge
Companion to Reformed Theology, ed. Paul T. Nimmo and David A. F. Ferguson (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2016), 228–9. Te Velde argues that it is important to study Reformed
scholasticism because of its preoccupation with divine self-revelation, because it is part of the classic
Christian tradition, because of its apologetic potential, and because of its stress on the Creator/
creature distinction.
Introduction: Why Reformed Scholasticism? 5
Such features promoted a level of precision and catholicity that is often lacking
in contemporary theology and ministry.4
Second, studying and writing about Reformed scholasticism can enable
ministers and seminary professors to translate academic theology into pastoral
theology. Pastors often spend much time studying important material that
does not transfer readily or helpfully into sermons or into the classroom. They
must learn to digest what they read prayerfully and adapt it in a way that can
be useful to others. Many Reformed scholastics, such as Petrus van Mastricht
(1630–1706), wrote their systems of theology to teach men how to preach
better.5 This was true even of Thomas Aquinas (1225–74), who in the medieval
period wrote his Summa to equip Dominican preachers.6 Through writing this
book, the author aims, in part, to help some of his readers develop the skill to
think on an academic and practical level and to move fluidly between both,
which is a rare skill in our present era.
Third, studying Reformed scholasticism promotes historical methodology.
While ministers and theological students in particular are increasingly interested
in studying classic Reformed thought, they rarely learn proper historical
method, nor do they see the value in doing so. It is important to separate
historical theology as a discipline from contemporary uses before translating
the raw materials gleaned from such studies into something that can help the
church. It is crucial to know what historic Reformed authors meant in their own
contexts and why they said what they did before evaluating and appropriating
critically their ideas. While students may not always like what they find in
asking such questions, they need to learn that this is okay. It is important to
listen to what people said on their own terms before evaluating, let alone using,
their teaching. This is particularly important for churches that continue to use
historic Reformed confessions, such as the Three Forms of Unity, the Second
Helvetic Confession, the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, and
the London Baptist Confession. Such documents have historical contexts as
4
For example, Johannes Maccovius, Scholastic Discourse: Johannes Maccovius (1588–1644) on
Theological and Philosophical Distinctions and Rules (Apeldoorn: Instituut voor Reformatieonderzoek,
2009).
5
Peter van Mastricht, The Best Method of Preaching: The Use of Theoretical-Practical Theology, trans.
Todd Rester (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2013), 17–18.
6
Philip McCosker and Denys Turner, eds., The Cambridge Companion to the Summa Theologiae,
Cambridge Companions to Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 3, 18.
well as contemporary uses. A contextual study of Reformed scholasticism can

help modern students understand what Reformed orthodox authors meant
before asking whether their teaching is biblical or helpful.
Fourth, Reformed scholasticism provides the foundational character of classic
Reformed Systematic Theology. This is important to grasp if contemporary
Reformed theology aims to maintain catholic unity and continuity with its
historic roots. Bac and Pleizier note the need to “safeguard” the historical
reading of sources in their historical contexts instead of rushing into modern
systematic uses of the material.7 This present book promotes this concern while
taking a forward step toward systematic and practical theology. Many authors
struggle to translate Reformed doctrine for contemporary audiences. This
often results in devising new methods for doing theology and new emphases
and altered content in modern Reformed theology.8 The last chapter of this
book shows how recovering a contextual study of Reformed scholasticism
can help students bring a different set of conversation partners to the table in
theological discussions. Building on the historic roots of Reformed systematic
theology has great potential for promoting unity among Reformed (and other)
Christians by learning to expound and to adapt classic models of Reformed
theology for today’s church. The recent resurgence of interest in this field of
study and the widespread online availability of primary sources for the first
time in history makes such studies ripe for development.
Lastly, Reformed scholasticism provides a model for engaging critically with
the entire catholic tradition of the church. Several parts of this book illustrate
how Reformed authors developed their theology in conversation with the early
church, the medieval period, Reformation, and post-Reformation Reformed
authors, as well as with contemporary thinkers across confessional lines. This
feature of Reformed scholastic theology secured the catholic character of
Reformed thought while keeping the confessional fault lines dividing post-
Reformation theologians relatively clear. Such critical engagement provides a
model of theologically mature evaluations of the entire catholic tradition of
7
Martijn Bac and Theo Pleizier, “Reentering the Sites of Truth: Teaching Reformed Scholasticism in
the Contemporary Classroom,” in Scholasticism Reformed: Essays in Honor of Willem J. van Asselt,
ed. Maarten Wisse, Marcel Sarot, and Willemien Otten, vol. 14, Studies in Theology and Religion
(Leiden: Brill, 2010), 53.
8
The last chapter of this present volume provides examples of this trend.
the church. While this is a difficult endeavor, it reflects the conviction that
Christ has been faithful to his church in every age and that she has something
to learn from every period of Christian history. The skill of wedding catholicity
to biblical and confessional fidelity is rare in any age. Reformed scholasticism
provides an excellent historical example of a robust attempt at doing so.
Who is this book for?
This book is designed primarily for English-speaking seminary students,

budding historians, and Reformed ministers and professors. The author
hopes to promote the sound theory and practice of historical theology and
to convince ministers particularly of the benefits of studying Reformed
scholasticism while serving in ministry. While distinguishing these tasks, one
burden of this book is to illustrate the potential relationship between them.
In doing so, the author aims to promote godly and learned Reformed pastors
and professors who can teach others what they learn to the Father’s glory, in
union with Christ, by the Spirit’s ministry to the church. It also aims to teach
all students of this field how to be sound historians and to develop their skills
in doing and teaching historical theology. In light of these things, the tone of
the book is partly scholarly and partly anecdotal.
The author promotes the study of Reformed scholasticism here like a
teacher in a classroom leading students by the hand through the subject. For
this reason, he occasionally deviates from academic style, providing both
professional and personal illustrations from the combined perspectives of a
professional historian, of a Professor of Systematic Theology, and of a pastor.
These deviations into personal illustrations appear only where the author
believes that students need them for the sake of clarifying the topics treated.
How does this book achieve its aims?
This book is divided roughly into five parts. The introduction constitutes part
one. Subsequent parts treat research methodology and writing, the nature
of Reformed scholasticism, the character of Reformed scholasticism, and
contemporary appropriations of Reformed scholasticism. The working thesis

of this book, namely, that a contextual study of Reformed Scholasticism is
vital for understanding and developing Reformed Systematic Theology today,
carries through all of its chapters, though in differing respects that reflect the
tenor of each part.
The material treating research methodology and contemporary
appropriations, in many respects, represents the core of the book. The parts
on the nature and character of Reformed scholasticism introduce students
to enough material to become oriented to the subject. For this reason, this
book does not treat the history of scholarship on the subject at length, but it
summarizes the work of other authors on this front and directs readers to a host
of sources that they will need to pursue serious study of this topic. This means,
for example, that the book does not include full treatments of Aristotelian
philosophy and medieval theology, though it provides examples of both to show
why this material is relevant to further research. The author’s primary concern
throughout is not so much to produce a comprehensive introduction to the
topics treated as it is to teach students how to study Reformed scholasticism
and how to understand what they can do with their research.
The introduction to research methodology includes four chapters. These
cover the proper use of primary sources, secondary sources, some comments
on historiography, and suggestions for writing historical theology. Each
chapter draws examples from primary source evidence, published books,
and articles in this field, as well as from personal research experience. This
includes a survey of some primary authors of Reformed scholastic theology,
suggestions on how to obtain and use original sources, how to identify and
avoid some historical fallacies, and directions for outlining and writing a
research project. The distinctive contribution of this part is that all examples
are taken from the field of Reformed orthodox/scholasticism studies, covering
Reformed theology from roughly 1560 to 1790. The author’s assumption
throughout is that the reader is in the early stages of learning to write about
Reformed scholasticism. This material targets students whose first language
is English.
The part on the nature of Reformed scholasticism has four chapters
as well. The first of these chapters introduces Reformed scholasticism
generally with introductory comments on the terminology relevant to such
studies. This material introduces, in seed form, the relevance of items such
as Renaissance studies, Aristotelianism and Ramism, and medieval theology
for Reformed thought. The following three chapters address the nature
of Reformed scholasticism as a theology of the schools, the interaction of
Reformed scholastic theology with the entire catholic theological tradition of
the Christian church, and some examples of methodological and theological
continuities, discontinuities, and developments between Reformation and
post-Reformation Reformed theology. These chapters outline the nature
and development of Reformed scholasticism as a method and means of
Reformed theological education. The catholic character of this movement,
its use of ancient and medieval sources, and its methodology characterized
the theological education of Reformed ministers for almost three centuries.
This material sets the stage for later comments on possible contemporary
appropriations in relation to how to develop Reformed theology today.
The fourth part, which addresses the character of Reformed scholasticism,
builds on the preceding one. The three chapters comprising this part expand the
catholic character of Reformed scholasticism by highlighting its international
character, its capacity for theological precision and clarity, and the integral
relationship between theology and piety in classic Reformed theology. The
material on international crossover in Reformed theology introduces briefly
the distinctive contexts of various regions where Reformed churches grew and
the role of scholastic theology in various universities in giving international
coherence to the movement. The chapter on piety addresses the devotional
tendency of Reformed definitions of theology, using English Puritanism and
the Dutch Nadere Reformatie to illustrate continuities and discontinuities
within Reformed scholastic theology more generally in light of national
contexts. Due to its practical bent, this chapter serves as a bridge to the last
part of the book that deals with potential contemporary appropriations of
Reformed scholastic theology.
The fifth part of this book brings the whole to practical resolution by
teaching students to think through the process of integrating elements of the
study of Reformed scholasticism into theological and pastoral uses. In many
ways, this material is both the climax and capstone of this book. While proper
historical method is vital to this field, pastors, and those who train them, need
to learn what to do with historical theology. For this reason, the single chapter
constituting this part concludes the book by teaching students what to do with
the “raw materials” that they have gathered, filtering it through their goals as
Christians and teachers, with some final exhortations and examples showing
the potential payoff of these studies for the church. Writing historical theology,
especially in relation to Reformed scholasticism, is like mining for gold. Once
students extract and refine the ore, they either need to make something with it
or sell it to someone who can. This concluding chapter is a modest attempt to
give students ideas for how to do this.
In summary, this entire book argues implicitly why students should study
Reformed scholasticism. Every chapter in parts two through four opens with
a thesis that illustrates why the content of that chapter is necessary to study
Reformed scholasticism. The last chapter shifts emphases, using language such
as, “in order to profit from your study of Reformed scholasticism, you should …
” The result is that the book teaches students why to study this topic, how to do
so, and what to do after doing so. Examples of original research from primary
source material are also scattered throughout the book, making it a bit more
than a guide to the subject and its literature. A project of this breadth is bound
to have weak points and key omissions, but the author hopes that it nonetheless
serves its purposes in promoting sound historical theology and theological
reflection.
Why is this book justified?
The primary texts that I use for the course on which this book is based
illustrate why the book is necessary. Though the select bibliography points to
some of the many sources used to develop this course, four of them stand out
as resulting in the development of this present volume.
Willem van Asselt’s outstanding Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism is
the primary textbook for the abovementioned course.9 Van Asselt introduces
the study of Reformed scholasticism excellently. However, his presentation
of research methodology admits expansion by way of copious positive and
negative examples in light of the large body of secondary literature related
9
Asselt et al., Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism.
to Reformed scholasticism. His part on contemporary uses of Reformed

scholasticism allows for expansion as well, particularly in bridging the gap
between academic theology and pastoral ministry. This present book aims to
build on this invaluable work through providing such examples and by making
such connections explicitly.
To teach students research methodology, I require Michael Kibbe’s From
Topic to Thesis.10 This book explains how to put together a research project
with simplicity and clarity. However, almost all of the examples are drawn from
biblical studies and students of Reformed scholasticism need more specific
examples to help them get a handle of researching and writing in relation to
this important field. This volume mimics Kibbe’s counsel regarding developing
a thesis, outlining, writing, and revising a project with an eye on Reformed
scholasticism.
I supplement the material from Kibbe with Carl Trueman’s Histories and
Fallacies.11 Trueman goes a step beyond Kibbe by showing how history should
be done once students have narrowed their theses. The examples in my work
imitate Trueman’s evaluation of historical fallacies, with special application to
research and writing in the realm of Reformed scholasticism, which he does
little of in that volume. As a result, most of the examples come from my own
research and from numerous published book reviews.
Lastly, I require my students to read the English translation of Johannes
Maccovius’s Scholastic Discourse to introduce them to the theological terms
involved in Reformed scholasticism by way of an important primary source.12
This book introduces students to the vocabulary and grammar that undergirded
classic Reformed theology. This present volume seeks to use Latin primary
sources such as this one to introduce the character of Reformed scholasticism
to students more broadly.
While this project would not be possible without the four texts mentioned
above, in summary, this book makes the following additional contributions to
this field of study:
10
Michael Kibbe, From Topic to Thesis: A Guide to Theological Research (Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP
Academic, 2016).
11
Carl R. Trueman, Histories and Fallacies: Problems Faced in the Writing of History (Wheaton, IL:
Crossway, 2010).
12
Maccovius, Scholastic Discourse.
1. I provide extensive examples of research methodology from literature

related directly to Reformed scholasticism.
2. I (hesitantly) illustrate fallacies from published secondary sources in this
field of research.
3. I teach pastors the value of learning historical methodology to separate
historical theology as a discipline distinct from others and valuable in its
own right.
4. I aim to teach pastors how to reintegrate what they learn from their
historical research to enrich their teaching ministries and effectiveness in
discipling local congregations.
In these ways, this author seeks to inculcate proper historical research

methodology without clouding historical conclusions with theological
agendas. However, authors are never unbiased. Theological agendas may
drive students toward this kind of research without negating their ability to do
sound research. As Bac and Pleitzier state,
At a twenty-first century academic institution, students are supposedly not

motivated by mere archeological reasons to study the theological tradition.
Though intrinsically worthwhile, the conceptual reconstruction of Reformed
scholasticism is part of the quest for truth that should inspire the academic
training of intellectually responsible theologians. We study Reformed
scholasticism according to its own canons, if we keep being interested in the
journey for truth.13
This author contends that to learn from Reformed scholasticism without

renouncing modern theological agendas, students must first develop the
ability to study Reformed scholasticism without reading their theological
agendas into classic Reformed theology. This is a difficult task, but it is one
that is worthwhile.
Conclusion
The objectives used in my Reformed scholasticism course outlines summarize

and conclude this introduction:
13
Bac and Pleizier, “Teaching Reformed Scholasticism,” 54.
1. To teach pastors and students how understand the significance of

Reformed scholastic theology for historical and contemporary theology.
2. To teach pastors and students how to develop proper historiography and
research methods.
3. To guide pastors and students to put proper methodology into practice
through research and writing. For some, this will prepare them for higher
degree programs. For professors, it may give them a guide to use with
their students.
4. To illustrate why students should appreciate and value a contextually
oriented historical theology.
5. To help pastors and students distinguish and separate historical theology
from contemporary uses.
6. To develop the skill of learning from historical theology to make
contemporary applications.
7. To recover Reformed theological method and not merely Reformed
theological content. This is vital for doing contemporary theology and for
learning from classic Reformed theology for the edification of the church.
8. To enable students better to understand the contexts and content of the
Westminster Standards, the Three Forms of Unity, and other historic
Reformed confessions. This will better equip readers to understand what
their confessional documents mean so that they can evaluate them in light
of Scripture and use them more effectively in the church.
14
Part Two
Research Methodology
16
2
Sources: Primary
Good history must be rooted in primary sources. One of the primary

reasons why Richard Muller’s studies of Reformed scholastic theology have
revolutionized this field lies in his careful reading of historical sources on their
own terms and in their own contexts.1 Which primary sources students use
and how they use them will depend on how their theses develop out of general
topics of interest. Students must then know how to identify relevant primary
sources and they must learn how to use them properly. This chapter aims to
lay some foundational principles to guide researchers in doing these things.
This material concludes with introducing some important authors for each
periodization of Reformed orthodoxy to give readers a generic starting point
for resources that may be relevant to further study. The main point is that to
study Reformed scholasticism, it is necessary to learn how to choose a topic
and to identify and to use relevant primary sources. Accordingly, the sections
below move through choosing a topic, learning how to use primary sources,
setting historical contexts, how to learn and use the Latin language, how to
get needed sources, and an introduction some important Protestant scholastic
authors.
How to choose a topic of study
Choosing a good topic will largely determine the measure of successful

research and how much students enjoy their studies. However, to write good
historical theology, it is vital to learn to modify, if not replace, the questions
1
Maarten Wisse, Marcel Sarot, and Willemien Otten, eds., Scholasticism Reformed: Essays in Honour
of Willem J. Van Asselt, vol. 14, Studies in Theology and Religion (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 5.
that we ask in relation our subjects with the questions that our subjects lead
us to ask. This should result in a cycle of asking preliminary questions and
altering them through the research process. Doing so will help students move
from a general topic to a solid thesis.2
Pick a topic that interests you
Choosing a good topic may include goals related to what a writer plans to do
with what they hope to gain from their research when they complete their
projects. For example, this author once had a student who was interested
in studying Owen’s covenant theology because it gave him greater clarity
personally in understanding the Reformed doctrine of the covenant. However,
once the student began to delve into the secondary literature on Owen’s
covenant theology, he discovered that he might have bit off more than he could
chew. While Owen defined covenants in a standard Reformed manner and
he upheld the basic distinction between the covenants of works of and grace,
he held a minority view of the Mosaic covenant.3 He taught that the Mosaic
covenant was neither the covenant of works nor the covenant of grace, but
superadded covenant that connected both the covenants of works and of grace
to the new covenant in Christ.4 Without going into the details of this position
here, it illustrates the value and limitations of studying a topic that interests a
student.
Students may begin with a subject of personal interest and discover either
that their topic is a good one or that it presents a seemingly unreachable goal
for a beginning student in this field. Researchers need to discover which topics
are feasible through a process of trial and error. In any case, if the chosen topic
does not sufficiently interest the writer, then he or she will not likely follow
it through to the end. Some personal interest in a subject is, nevertheless,
2
For fuller ideas along these lines, see Michael Kibbe, From Topic to Thesis: A Guide to Theological
Research (Downer's Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016).
3
Mark Jones, “The ‘Old’ Covenant,” in Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and
Debates within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism, ed. Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones,
vol. 17, Reformed Historical Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 183–203.
4
For more detail on this thorny issue, see Ryan M. McGraw, “A Heavenly Directory”: Trinitarian
Piety, Public Worship, and a Reassessment of John Owen’s Theology, Reformed Historical Theology
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014), chapter five, chapter five.
Sources: Primary 19
important, especially for those who are not yet familiar with the overarching
state of research or the issues involved, since it provides a starting point that
will lead to digging into primary sources.
Answer historical questions rather than contemporary ones
Though personal questions and interests may lead potential authors to a topic
of research, their thought processes must undergo a substantial metamorphosis
in light of primary source reading. Picking a topic that one enjoys often makes
the end product more useful even as doing so helps researchers persevere
in their work. Yet, to borrow a well-known phrase from Cambridge scholar
Quentin Skinner, historians must learn to “see things their way.”5 While
contemporary questions may lead to topics that appeal to personal tastes and
to meeting the needs of Christian ministry, they do not necessarily lead to the
best historical research. Current interests can lead even sound historians into
using anachronisms, which unintentionally impose contemporary issues on
historical figures.
For example, Robert Letham has asked whether Owen’s trinitarian
theology is Eastern or Western in light of his emphasis on distinct fellowship
with each divine person.6 However, as I have argued elsewhere, Reformed
orthodox authors such as Owen were not asking the question as to whether
their trinitarianism should be Eastern or Western.7 Moreover, Richard
Muller argues that it is impossible to classify Reformed trinitarianism
either as Eastern or Western.8 Owen in particular engaged in an eclectic use
of historical sources, which, as I will illustrate below under the nature and
character of Reformed scholasticism, was characteristic of Reformed theology
5
Quentin Skinner, Visions of Politics: Volume 1: Regarding Method (Cambridge and New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2002); Alister Chapman, John Coffey, and Brad S. Gregory, eds., Seeing
Things Their Way: Intellectual History and the Return of Religion (Notre Dame: University of Notre
Dame Press, 2009).
6
Robert Letham, “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity in Its Catholic Context,” in The Ashgate
Research Companion to John Owen’s Theology (Farnham, and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2012),
185–98.
7
Ryan M. McGraw, “Trinitarian Doxology: Reassessing John Owen’s Contribution to Reformed
Orthodox Trinitarian Theology,” Westminster Theological Journal 77, no. 2 (Fall 2015): 293–316.
8
Muller, PRRD, 4:72. This sentence is adapted from the article cited in the immediately preceding
footnote.
at the time. The question of whether we should emphasize the unity of the
Godhead or the divine persons or both is a modern question stemming from
ecumenical conversations between some Reformed authors and some Eastern
authors.9 Reformed scholastics, as far as this author can tell, were unaware that
this was (or would be) a serious question. What a scholar learns from Owen
may be relevant to contemporary questions by derivation, but importing such
questions into a historical study runs the risk of missing (at least in part)
Owen’s distinctive contribution to Reformed trinitarian theology. Doing this
in some way or another is every historian’s temptation.
As this author will show more fully under the heading of “primary sources”
below, it is important to set aside the questions that led to a topic for a time to
let the subjects raise their own questions as understood in their own context.
The student’s first task is to ask why such subjects said what they did in light of
their own historical concerns and contexts. Such questions should shape the
development of research leading to writing.
Read widely in primary source literature
This observation relates to the above-noted issue of learning to ask historical

questions rather than contemporary ones. It highlights the point that students
must read widely in primary source literature. This means that if they chose a
topic related, for example, to Richard Baxter (1615–91), then they must read
relevant material from Baxter, from people associated with him, from his
opponents, and from theologians of other traditions to get a feel for the lay of
the historical landscape in which he lived and thought. This process applies to
all chosen topics related to field of Reformed scholasticism.
Read secondary source literature related to your topic
In developing a topic, students need to learn to think outside of the box.

In relation to this author’s PhD project, which related to Owen’s trinitarian
theology in relation to his system of theology and as culminating in public
9
Fred Sanders, “Back to the Trinity,” in Theologies of Retrieval: An Exploration and Appraisal, ed.
Darren Sarisky (London: T&T Clark, 2017), 224.
Sources: Primary 21
worship, he did not have much secondary source material to draw from that
was related immediately to his subject. This created a need to read other
secondary sources that were analogous to the questions raised. So, for example,
he needed to read books on English Puritanism and continental theology. He
had to seek out studies on seventeenth-century trinitarian theology and on
the importance of public worship in Reformed orthodoxy. He read secondary
works on Reformed scholastic thought on the doctrines of Scripture, of God,
theological method, Ecclesiology, and many other related areas. These often
included studies on related figures, such as Thomas Goodwin (1600–80), who
was Owen’s friend and sometime co-pastor, Calvin, Mastricht, and even the
Council of Trent theologian, Ambrogio Catarino (1484–1553). The author also
found a biography on William Laud (1573–1645), the Puritan arch-nemesis
in relation to the question of public worship, very helpful in developing his
subject.10 These studies will help shape a proper treatment of the topic chosen
and narrow one’s studies, moving toward a specific thesis that the researcher
can prove, showing why it is significant in its historical context. Reading
secondary literature to help select a topic and narrow its scope into a thesis
should not replace primary source reading, but it can help students gain a
better sense of the state of current research as they attempt to state their own
research questions more clearly and accurately.
Keep an open mind
Keeping an open mind involves being willing to lay aside, modify, or abandon
preconceived ideas about an author or topic. Researchers need to learn to let
their topics of study guide their thoughts as they read, which will guide their
hands as they write. Students may not always like what they find in relation
to the biases they bring to their studies (and we all have them). For instance,
historical figures may have personal flaws that scholars either find distasteful
or that may clash with their preconceptions of historical figures.
One instance that stands out in this regard relates to an “Italian convert”
named Galeazzo Caracciolo, who fled to Calvin’s Geneva in the mid-sixteenth
century. This man was from the wealthy upper class in Italy. He was converted
10
Charles Carlton, Archbishop William Laud (London and New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987).
dramatically out of Roman Catholicism and had to flee his country. However,
the dark side of the story was that he abandoned his wife and children to do
so and was granted permission to divorce his wife and to remarry in Geneva.
While he became a hero, who was set forth as an example of piety in many
Reformed hagiographical accounts of his life, his remarriage created an uneasy
tension with the prevailing Reformed views of divorce and remarriage at the
time. Reformed authors perhaps surprisingly, at the time and long afterward,
overlooked this fact to create a useful example of a dramatic conversion to
the Reformed faith.11 People may not always fit comfortably into expected
confessional categories and historical outcomes are frequently unexpected.
This came home to a friend of the author’s whom he directed to read a
book about diversity within the Reformed tradition.12 He was shocked to
discover that proponents of a form of English Hypothetical Universalism
at the Westminster Assembly still professed to believe everything that the
Westminster Standards taught about Christ dying to save the elect only. The
primary difference was that they added the notion that Christ died for all men
in a different sense.13 Being fair to your subject and liking what you find do
not always coincide. Keep an open mind and let historical figures lead you to
conclusions on their own terms.
Do not rely on your supervisors to choose your topic

and to outline your chapters
Supervisors are there to help direct students. This includes giving direction in
choosing a topic. While receiving such help is indispensable in studying a field
such as Reformed scholasticism, supervisors are not there to do the work of the
student for them. This is especially true when pursuing a higher degree based
11
This material summarizes the account as presented in Emidio Campi, Shifting Patterns of Reformed
Tradition, vol. 27, Reformed Historical Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014),
285–95.
12
Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones, eds., Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity
and Debates within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism, vol. 17, Reformed Historical Theology
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011).
13
J. V. Fesko, “Lapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dort,” in Drawn into Controversie: Reformed
Theological Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism, ed. Mark Jones and
Michael A. G. Haykin, vol. 17, Reformed Historical Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
2011), 99–123.
Sources: Primary 23
on a European rather than an American model, since in lieu of course work

that may or may not provide ideas on what to study, students need to come to
their projects with a basic sense of direction and they need to prove to their
potential supervisors that they can do the work.14 However, in this author’s
experience, students often expect those supervising their work to answer all
of their questions for them instead of teaching them how to ask, research, and
answer their own questions. Supervisors should be tools to aid our research
rather than becoming substitutes for learning to do our own work.
Ordinarily, as research progresses, students will often be in a better position
to choose a topic and outline their chapters than their supervisors will. The
reason for this is that students will become immersed in primary sources that
their supervisors might not be. This is part of the point of engaging in fresh
historical research related to Reformed scholasticism. Supervisors are better
able to help students refine a topic and a proposed structure than they are
to create one for them. They can suggest topics and potential chapters, but
students must take ownership of their own projects. This will likely mean that
the first year of study in a postgraduate program, for example, will be largely
devoted to reading, note taking, and working through reworking a proposal.
In light of the above counsel, you may end in a very different place from where
you began and from where you expected to be.
Assess the difficulty of your topic
The opening paragraphs of this chapter touched on this area in relation to

choosing a topic that interests the student, yet some further comments are
in order in this connection. Some ideas sound better as subjects of research
prior to pursuing them than they do when students delve into the primary and
secondary source materials related to them. Writing on Calvin, for example,
will be daunting for most students, though not impossible, due to the staggering
amount of secondary literature available on his life and theology. This makes
it harder to justify a research project as contributing something to Calvin
14
For some further suggestions in this area, see Ryan M. McGraw, “Continuing Education for
Ministers: A Guide for Ministers and Congregations,” Puritan Reformed Journal 4, no. 1 (January
2012): 307–23. This article is available on the journal’s website.
studies. On the other hand, writing on a subject such as Thomas Manton, on

whom almost no secondary literature exists, creates its own difficulties and
makes research and writing particularly provisional in nature.
General topics are also much more difficult than individual subjects,
though they are often more important if done well. Randall Pederson’s PhD
work on defining Puritanism is a good example of pursuing a general topic.15
The strength of his research lies in clarifying a broader question in historical
theology related to the definition of Puritanism, but its weaknesses lies in
struggling to obtain the breadth of knowledge and precision in relation to
individual topics and in fitting countless historical figures into his narrative.16
Pederson is an excellent scholar who set for himself a difficult task, due to
both the thorny nature of defining English Puritanism and the virtual cottage
industry that has risen around this question. He did his work well, but many
may not. Particularly if this is your first venture into historical theology, then
be careful that your topic does not get you more than you bargained for.
How to identify primary sources
Primary sources should shape your research and writing. As noted above,
Richard Muller dropped a bombshell on contemporary historical research related
to Reformed scholasticism, the effects of which continue to reverberate in the
scholarly world.17 In contrast to earlier research, which pitted Calvin as the pristine
founder of the Reformed tradition against the nasty scholastics, who allegedly
fouled up Calvin’s biblical system of theology, Muller demonstrated decisively
that Reformed orthodox uses of scholastic theology developed constructively the
Reformed system of doctrine in a way that was marked by both continuity and
discontinuity. He also highlighted the fact that Calvin was not the founder of a
theological tradition, but that he was one excellent proponent of that tradition
15
Randall J. Pederson, Unity in Diversity: English Puritans and the Puritan Reformation, 1603–1689,
vol. 68, Brill Studies in Church History (Leiden: Brill, 2014).
16
Ryan M. McGraw, “A Review of Randall J. Pederson, Unity and Diversity: English Puritans and the
Puritan Reformation 1603–1689,” Calvin Theological Journal, 50, no. 2 (2015): 307–9.
17
This work is reprinted as, Richard A. Muller, Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in
Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008).
Sources: Primary 25
among others.18 His method was simple. He went back to primary sources and
read and explained them in their original contexts.19 This highlights why students
of Reformed scholasticism must learn how to identify and use primary sources
well to write sound historical theology related to this field of study.
What are primary sources?
Up to this point, this author has used the terms primary and secondary sources
while assuming some familiarity with their meaning. However, it can be
helpful to clarify what they mean. Primary sources are those sources resulting
immediately from the historical event in question. For example, Calvin’s Institutes,
commentaries, and letters are primary sources in relation to any given area of his
thought. For the purposes of historical research, primary sources are records of
events directly resulting from the subject studied. In relation to the history of his
ideas, of which historical theology is a part, these events are ideas and concepts.
Some historians divide sources into primary, secondary, and tertiary levels. The
intent in doing so is to distinguish primary sources related to a particular subject
and contemporaneous sources surrounding that subject. Applying this rubric
to Calvin studies, for example, would mean that Calvin’s writings constitute
primary sources, Beza’s biography of Calvin would be a secondary source, and
books written about Calvin’s ideas after the fact are tertiary. For the purposes
of this book, I distinguish only between primary and secondary sources. This
means that, in the example given here, Calvin’s writings and Beza’s writings (and
other literature contemporaneous to Calvin) are all primary sources.
What are secondary sources?
Secondary sources are anything written about the event after the fact. Following
the example above, secondary sources include what others have written about
Calvin’s thought. Ordinarily, this is what scholars call secondary sources. This
18
The title of a recent work by John Fesko illustrates one outcome of Muller’s research. J. V. Fesko,
Beyond Calvin: Union with Christ and Justification in Early Modern Reformed Theology (1517–1700),
vol. 20, Reformed Historical Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012).
19
For another seminal study along these lines, see David C. Steinmetz, Calvin in Context (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1995).
author will refer to them in this way in all subsequent discussions. With regard
to Calvin studies, secondary sources could encompass nineteenth-century
biographies as well as more up-to-date historical research. Current secondary
sources are ordinarily more useful than older ones, since they engage in up-to-
date reflections on a subject and bring us into conversation with them.
Using primary sources to set your context
Setting a context is necessary in any historical study. The historian sets a

historical context as broadly or as narrowly as he or she chooses based on
the questions they raise and the breadth of sources that they chose to draw
from.20
A personal illustration can help readers see more easily the value in doing
so. I do most of my teaching in a Presbyterian seminary. For this reason,
I often show students the need to set a broad historical context by using
an example from my experience serving in presbyteries as a Presbyterian
minister. In my context, all of our ministers subscribe to the Westminster
Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms. However, some
of our ministers come from non-denominational, Baptist, and other
backgrounds. While some of them grew up in Presbyterian and Reformed
homes, most attended seminary in a variety of institutions, and they come
from different states in the United States as well as from other countries. This
group of Presbyterian ministers also define themselves, implicitly at least,
by a series of negations: they are not Roman Catholic, they are not Baptists,
they are not Anglicans, they are not Congregationalists, etc. In addition to
such varied backgrounds, church officers with a common theology may
have widely differing pastoral concerns and emphases. Some are concerned
with legalism while others combat antinomianism; some fight the inroads of
perceived liberal tendencies while others positively preach Christ, etc. Such
ministers are rarely self-conscious about their contexts in this environment.
Nevertheless, these implicit influences shape how they view themselves as
20
Crossway, 2010), 140.
Sources: Primary 27
well as how and what they teach. Such factors are relevant if we want to
understand historical people well, yet our removal from their contexts makes
the process of doing so challenging.
The problem with doing historical research is that historians must
reconstruct the broader contexts of people whose times that differ widely
from our own. For this reason, the following directions provide hints at how
to do so in relation to studying Reformed scholasticism. While students of
Reformed scholasticism can never fully reconstruct the historical contexts of
their chosen subjects, they should aim to do so as far as they can to make sense
of the data they are analyzing.
Set a broad context
While writing historical theology, which is a subset of the history of ideas,

students must include many historical issues that influence the thought
of historical subjects. For example, social and political contexts are equally
important with theological ones to set the stage for writing accurate history.
One professional historian related to this author in conversation that one of
the most profound lessons that he learned in his field of study was that not
every theological question has a theological cause. Sometimes theological
questions have social, political, and personal causes as well as convictions that
stand in the mainstream of a particular confessional tradition.
Setting John Owen’s views on worship in their historical context illustrates
this principle clearly. On the one hand, the principle of worship that he
elaborated was a relatively standard application of the Reformed doctrine of
the sufficiency of Scripture. On the other hand, he faced persecution in his
early life from a national church that often suppressed his convictions and
practices by law.21 National, international, and cross-confessional contexts
are vital in this regard.22 This does not mean that such issues exclude Owen’s
interpretation of the Bible or his place within Reformed confessional theology,
21
For an anti-Puritan perspective on Reformed views of worship from the viewpoint of Richard
Hooker, see W. Bradford Littlejohn and Scott N. Kindred-Barnes, eds., Richard Hooker and Reformed
Orthodoxy, vol. 40, Reformed Historical Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017),
73, 79.
22
See chapters 1 and 3 of McGraw, A Heavenly Directory.
but they remind us that Reformed scholastic authors, such as Owen, wrote in
a context that scholars must attempt to grasp in some measure if they would
understand why they wrote what they did and how their ideas and practices
developed. In this case, an international context highlights what Owen had in
common with Reformed theologians more broadly, while his particular social
and political contexts show why public worship occupied his attention with
urgency and why he raised some of the questions that he did.
Prioritize primary sources
Prioritizing primary sources means developing arguments from primary

sources first and foremost. This applies first to a chosen subject, especially if the
researcher chooses to write on an individual theologian versus a general topic.
A topic, such as the knowledge of God in Reformed orthodoxy, will demand
drawing from a range of authors from various national and international
contexts. On the other hand, studying a figure, such as Gisbertus Voetius,
requires understanding his place in the Netherlands in the seventeenth century
generally and Voetius’s writings in particular. Prioritizing primary sources
applies next to topics related to those treated by a subject and to contemporary
accounts that interact with or relate analogously to your subject. The goal is to
build a full picture of your subject in his or her context, mainly from primary
source material. John Coffey’s theological and political biography on Samuel
Rutherford illustrates this point well.23 Coffey argues that most modern readers
either know Rutherford as the author of his devotional collection or letters
or as an early modern precursor to modern ideas of freedom and liberty.
He argues that, when set in context, a different Rutherford emerges. Coffey’s
Rutherford spent most his life engaged in heated theological polemics in the
context of the English Civil War. He opposed religious toleration, arguing for
an established state church enforced by law. This Rutherford engaged in these
activities in the context of the sincere and fervent love for Christ expressed in
his letters, yet the context of those letters included his broader concerns for
an established state church and the crossover between English and Scottish
23
John Coffey, Politics, Religion and the British Revolutions: The Mind of Samuel Rutherford (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2002).
Sources: Primary 29
politics. This results in a more well-rounded and historically accurate portrait

of Rutherford. This illustrates how research can take an author in, perhaps,
surprising directions when he or she follows the lead of the relevant primary
sources. I will add some cautions against going to opposite extremes in this
regard below. Studying sources related most immediately to a chosen topic is
the best means of writing good history, but they are not enough to understand
historical subjects contextually.
Prioritize other primary sources due to their immediate relevance

to your topic
Not all primary sources related to a historical topic are of equal weight or
importance. Determining what sources to prioritize can be a tricky business
at times. A good illustration of this is Hunter Powell’s excellent work on
debates over church government at the Westminster Assembly.24 Powell
discovered that prioritizing Robert Ballie’s (1602–62) journals, the writings
of the Westminster divines, and the minutes and papers of the Westminster
Assembly25 instead of tracts on church government by authors, such as Thomas
Edwards (1599–1647), yielded very different results than earlier scholarship
on this subject. He discovered that the Scottish Presbyterians held a common
view on the seat of church power with the Westminster Congregationalists,
who were known as “the five dissenting brethren.” The English Presbyterians,
such as Edwards, commonly held the view that Christ communicated
church power to Presbyteries and then through Presbyteries to ministers and
elders. However, the Scots and the Dissenting Brethren taught that Christ
communicated church power to ministers and elders in one way and to the
entire church (as electing their officers) in a different way. This explains why
some of the Scottish commissioners to the Assembly allied themselves with the
24
Hunter Powell, The Crisis of British Protestantism: Church Power in the Puritan Revolution 1638–44,
Politics, Culture and Society in Early Modern Britain (Manchester: Manchester University Press,
2015); Hunter Powell, “October 1643: The Dissenting Brethren on the Proton Dektikon,” in Drawn
into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-Century British
Puritanism, ed. Mark Jones and Michael A. G. Haykin, vol. 17, Reformed Historical Theology
(Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011), 52–82.
25
Chad B. van Dixhoorn, The Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly, 1643–1652, 5 vols.
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).
Westminster Congregationalists against the English Presbyterians in the early

stage of the debates over church government. They later broke this alliance due
to changing political circumstances. Powell’s use of primary sources shows that
historians need to learn to build a context that is sometimes more complicated
than it appears at first. Not all primary sources are equally useful for drawing
accurate historical conclusions. Researchers need to develop their assessments
of historical ideas through reading broadly and through exercising critical
thinking with regard to which sources they should prioritize to build an
accurate picture of a historical context.
Set your subject in the international context of Reformed theology
As subsequent chapters will show, Reformed scholasticism inherently includes

the international context of historic Reformed orthodoxy as it was propagated
in universities and theological schools. Students of this subject, therefore,
need to be sensitive to the international context of Reformed theological
methodology and teaching. Recognizing this fact is important, even if a
chosen subject shows no direct dependence on some of the authors selected
to illustrate the broader context of Reformed thought. Reformed scholasticism
was an international movement that interacted not only with early church and
medieval theology, but with international Reformed and cross-confessional
thought.26 Sometimes this kind of research yields surprising results. For
example, while Dutch church polity is often described as “continental,” this
does not reflect adequately the fact that continental authors sometimes
differed over their views of church synods. Authors, such as Francis Turretin,
taught that synods came under the title of “church” and argued that synods,
as expressions of the visible church, possessed and exercised the power of
the keys of the kingdom, while many Dutch authors did not.27 Turretin also
26
Although his treatment of Reformed scholasticism is limited to three authors, Ulrich Leinsle
illustrates the medieval trajectories and development of scholastic thought well in, Ulrich G. Leinsle,
Introduction to Scholastic Theology, trans. Michael J. Miller (Washington, DC: Catholic University of
America Press, 2010).
27
Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison, trans. George Musgrave
Giger, 3 vols. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992), 3:306; 18.23.1. The first set of numbers refers
to volume and page number in the translated version of Turretin’s work. The second set of numbers
refers to topic, chapter, and section.
Sources: Primary 31
defined issues such as the invisible and visible aspects of the church very
differently from a Dutch author like Wilhelmus a Brakel.28 Turretin taught that
the members of the invisible church consisted of the elect while the members
of the visible church consisted partly of the elect and partly of hypocrites.29
By contrast, Brakel suggested that the terms invisible and visible were not
very useful, since the true church consisted of elect regenerate members only
and that the visible church consisted only of this same group as they made
themselves visible on earth. Those only externally attached to the church
were not truly church members and had no true right to the sacraments.30
For another related example, at the Westminster Assembly, Robert Ballie tried
(illegally) to involve Gisbertus Voetius in debates over polity at the Assembly
only to discover that Voetius had endorsed Congregationalist John Cotton’s
Keys of the Kingdom. As Hunter Powell illustrates, Dutch authors, such as
Voetius, denied both the title of church and the exercise of church power
to synods.31 In this case, setting an international context uncovers points of
divergence as well as points of agreement among Reformed scholastic authors.
Such research can challenge an author’s assumptions regarding the nature of
continental theology on at some points. If a student is researching the theology
of a British Reformed scholastic author, he or she needs to remember that
very few systems of theology appeared in English during this time period.
This means that the researcher must consult continental works on theology
to understand a historic British subject. Reflecting the international context
of Reformed scholasticism helps place a subject of research in a broader
Reformed context. While this adds complexity to doing research, it will add
clarity to writing and it will make conclusions more solid.
Include authors from other theological traditions
Another mark of Reformed scholastic theology is catholicity. This included

not only critical interaction with early church and medieval authors, but
28
Wilhemus A’Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, ed. Joel R. Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout
(Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 2:5–7.
29
Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3:1; 18.1.2.
30
A’Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable Service, 2:6.
31
Powell, The Crisis of British Protestantism, 163–8.
representatives of cross-confessional contexts. This led to appropriations of

ideas from other confessional traditions as well as to doctrinal skirmishes. To
understand Reformed scholastic theology, students must consult some Roman
Catholic authors, Lutherans, Laudians, Socinians, and others as they pertain to
various subjects to build an adequate historical analysis. Theological influences
were more fluid in the period of Reformed orthodoxy than they often are at
present. Possible Lutheran influences on Owen’s covenant theology and Powell’s
note about some dependence of the Westminster Divines on the Lutheran,
Johan Gerhard, for polity issues are some good examples of where cross-
confessional studies can pay off.32 A late orthodox theologian, like Bernardinus
de Moor, cited Gerhard positively on his use of the church fathers and creeds
as well as his doctrine of Scripture.33 Aaron Denlinger’s work on the Roman
Catholic counter-Reformation theologian Ambrogio Catarino is a prime
example of a partial Roman Catholic overlap with Reformed conceptions of
the Covenant of Works.34 His study shows that Catarino developed a doctrine
of a Covenant of Works to bolster the Roman Catholic concept of merit. Some
of his Roman Catholic contemporaries became suspicious of him as being too
close to Protestantism on this point.35 Socinianism determined part of Owen’s
theological emphases on the Trinity,36 even as antinomianism did with respect
to Baxter,37 and Arminianism did in the Dutch lapsarian controversies.38
32
J. Mark Beach, Christ and the Covenant: Francis Turretin’s Federal Theology as a Defense of the
Doctrine of Grace (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 265–8; Powell, The Crisis of British
Protestantism, 37–9.
33
Bernardinus de Moor, Continuous Commentary on Johannes Marckius’ Didactico-Elenctic
Comendium of Christian Theology, trans. Stephen Dilday, vol. 1 (Culpeper, VA: L & G Reformation
Translation Center, 2014), 192, 201, 241.
34
Aaron C. Denlinger, Omnes in Adam Ex Pacto Dei: Ambrogio Catarino’s Doctrine of Covenantal
Solidarity and Its Influence on Post-Reformation Reformed Theologians (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2010).
35
Denlinger, Omnes in Adam Ex Pacto Dei, 8:183–92.
36
McGraw, A Heavenly Directory, chapter 2.
37
Tim Cooper, John Owen, Richard Baxter, and the Formation of Nonconformity (Farnham, and
Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011).
38
Fesko, “Lapsarian Diversity”; Joel R. Beeke, Debated Issues in Sovereign Predestination: Early Lutheran
Predestination, Calvinian Reprobation, and Variations in Genevan Lapsarianism, vol. 42, Reformed
Historical Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017), 168–73; Martin Mulsow and Jan
Rohls, eds., Socinianism and Arminianism: Antitrinitarians, Calvinists, and Cultural Exchange in
Seventeenth-Century Europe (Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill, 2005). The section cited in the Beeke
volume is particularly helpful in clarifying the parallel nature of competing methods of ordering the
divine decrees current in this debate.
Sources: Primary 33
Those studying and writing about Reformed scholasticism need to understand

something of the cross-confessional backgrounds that shaped the ideas of such
people. This is central to the historian’s task of attempting to reconstruct a
glimpse into the world in which these authors lived and thought.39
Use primary sources in their original languages and

in first printings, if obtainable
Mark Jones discovered that the published editions of Goodwin’s works were
sometimes very different in wording from original printings.40 Use copies that
are as close to first printings as you can find. Avoid nineteenth-century reprints
of Puritan works, for example, unless you can prove that they are verbatim
with the original texts to justify your use of them. For example, in the case of
John Owen’s Works, the nineteenth-century editor, William Goold, improved
Owen’s outlines without altering the content of his writings. Even in such cases,
however, original printings are generally more reliable. This also means that, if
at all possible, you should not rely exclusively on translation of original texts.
Even if good scholarly translations are available and you appeal to them, then
you should always check these translations with the original text in your work.
One example is where Turretin’s translator depicts him as asserting that
theology “is not knowledge.”41 What he actually wrote is that theology is
not scientia. While theology involved scientia, most Reformed authors did
not classify merely under the genus of science, opting instead for defining
theology as spiritual wisdom growing from God’s self-revelation in Scripture
and conjoined with the regenerating power of the Spirit in the theologian.42
39
See, Chapman, Coffey, and Gregory, Seeing Things Their Way, 40.
40
Mark Jones, Why Heaven Kissed Earth: The Christology of the Puritan Reformed Orthodox Theologian,
Thomas Goodwin (1600–1680), vol. 13, Reformed Historical Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2010), 19–21.
41
42
Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 19; Franciscus Junius, A Treatise on True Theology: With
the Life of Franciscus Junius, trans. David C. Noe (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage
Books, 2014), 99; Amandus Polanus, Syntagma Theologiae Christianae Ab Amando Polano a
Polansdorf: Juxta Leges Ordinis Methodici Conformatum, Atque in Libros Decem Digestum Jamque
Demum in Unum Volumen Compactum, Novissime Emendatum (Hanoviae, 1610), 63; John Owen,
Theologoumena Pantodapa, Sive, De Natura, Ortu, Progressu, Et Studio Veræ Theologiæ, Libri Sex
Quibus Etiam Origines & Processus Veri & Falsi Cultus Religiosi, Casus & Instaurationes Ecclesiæ
Illustiores Ab Ipsis Rerum Primordiis, Enarrantur (Oxoniæ, 1661), 9–10; A. Walaeus et al., Synopsis
If you study a work, such as Voetius and Hoornbeeck’s book on Spiritual

Desertion,43 then you will need to consult the Dutch text alongside the English
translation. However, in most cases, the primary language of primary sources
related to Reformed scholasticism was Latin. Latin was the language of
theological education, both in the classroom and in writing theological texts.
Latin provided an international vehicle for the study of theology and, for this
reason, not many systematic texts appeared in English.44 This is why I provide
some suggestions for studying Latin in the next section.
The language of Reformed scholastic primary sources:

Learning and using Latin
Students must learn Latin to engage in any serious study of Reformed

scholasticism or Reformed orthodoxy. Most serious works of theology
appeared in Latin during that time period to reach an international audience.45
As William Cunningham (1805–61) wrote, “Systems of theology have been
chiefly the production of Continental writers, and are to be found principally
in the Latin Language—one fact, among many others of a similar kind, which
establishes the necessity of students of theology acquiring the capacity of
reading Latin with perfect ease and readiness.”46 Moving beyond the pale
of mere theological literature, Pope John Paul II quoted Cicero, who wrote,
“Non tam praeclarum est scire Latine, quam turpe nescire.”47 This is roughly
translated, “It is not so excellent to know Latin, as it is shameful not to know it.”
Purioris Theologiae = Synopsis of a Purer Theology, ed. Henk van den Belt, trans. Riemer A. Faber,
vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 37; de Moor, Continuous Commentary on Marckius, 1:186–87. From
this list, the Leiden Synopsis states that theology fits the genus either of scientia or sapientia (vel
scientiam vel sapentiam) and de Moor prefers to expand theology to encompass every genus.
43
Gijsbert Voet and Johannes Hoornbeeck, Spiritual Desertion, trans. M. Eugene Osterhaven (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003).
44
One notable exception is, Edward Leigh, A Systeme or Body of Divinity Consisting of Ten Books,
Wherein the Fundamentals and Main Grounds of Religion Are Opened (London, 1654).
45
Willem J. van Asselt et al., Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism, trans. Albert Gootjes (Grand
Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011), 4, 202, 217.
46
William Cunningham, Theological Lectures (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1878), 39.
47
P. Suitbertus and H. Siedl, Cursus Linguae Latinae Vivae, 2nd ed. (Clearwater, FL: Editiones Familiae
Sancti Hieronymi, 1998), 2.
Sources: Primary 35
In relation to Reformed scholasticism, even English-speaking authors,

such as John Owen and Samuel Rutherford, wrote in Latin and drew from
an international backdrop of Latin theological education.48 In addition to
Reformed scholastic literature, having a working knowledge of Latin gives
students access to sources from the early church all the way through the
eighteenth century. This is an indispensable tool that opens access into a new
world of theological literature that can connect readers to a vast portion of the
Christian theological tradition as a whole.
Due to the fact that many students may not begin their research with an
adequate grasp of the Latin language, below are some suggestions regarding
where and how to start. The ultimate goal is to gain reading proficiency in
Reformed scholastic Latin and the author’s directions have this end in view.
These suggestions are limited largely to resources that are easy to use and that
build language skills quickly. These initial Latin studies will not likely furnish
students with adequate skill to produce professional translations of Latin texts,
but they will enable beginning students to read the books that they need and
want to read.
How to learn Latin
The Davenant Latin Institute conducts an online series of Latin courses that
aim specifically at reading theological Latin.49 Their self-description taken
from their website summarizes well the value of this resource in relation to
scholastic primary sources:
The Davenant Latin Institute aims to equip today’s seminarians, graduate

students, and teachers with the competency to unearth these treasures,
reading them in the original and perhaps even translating them for others
to enjoy. We will be offering a program of online courses, both introductory
and advanced, equipping students with basic Latin reading competence and,
for those that desire, the skills they need to engage with and translate some
of the most difficult early modern theological texts.
48
For examples from both authors, see John Owen, Diatriba de Iustitia Divina (Oxford, 1653); Owen,
Theologoumena Pantodapa; Samuel Rutherford, Disputatio Scholastica de Divina Providentia
(Edinburgh, 1649); Samuel Rutherford, Examen Arminianismi (Utrecht, 1668).
49
https://davenanttrust.org/latin-institute/
Several of this author’s students have used this resource with excellent results.
Those who have advanced to the higher levels of instruction provided through
the Davenant Institute have sometimes surpassed their teacher in some aspects
of their use of Latin as well. For those looking for greater proficiency in the
Latin language than simply the ability to read texts, this material is particularly
ideal.
Many students, however, will benefit from a self-directed reading program
to learn Latin. This is particularly true for those engaging in other labors, such
as pastoral ministry or teaching, while pursuing a higher degree program.
Self-study requires a higher level of self-discipline than enrolling in courses.
Yet some excellent resources are available that can enable students to pursue
this track effectively. The suggestions below reflect the author’s own path in
devoting at least one hour a day Monday through Friday to learning the Latin
language. After one year of study, he gained enough skill in the language
to read almost any Reformed scholastic text that he needed to for research
purposes. A necessary caveat to add is that scholastic texts, in this author’s
opinion, are easier to read than classic and early church texts, due to their
use of standardized theological terms and to the familiar paths of theological
debate.50
In this author’s view, the easiest to use beginner’s text is Suitbertus Siedl’s
Cursus Linguae Latinae Vivae.51 This text begins with Latin and English text
and shifts quickly to Latin only. The textbook is brief, yet it will furnish
students with at least a 1000-word Latin vocabulary by the end of the course.
The audio component of this course is its most important component, since
the teacher explains the terms and content of his text in Latin exclusively. The
audio component is what makes this course stand out above others. The idea
is that as students listen to the Latin language as well as read it, they learn the
50
For an introduction to the terminology involved in scholastic theology, see Johannes Maccovius,
Scholastic Discourse: Johannes Maccovius (1588–1644) on Theological and Philosophical Distinctions
and Rules (Apeldoorn: Instituut voor Reformatieonderzoek, 2009); Richard A. Muller, Dictionary
of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1985). The Maccovius text includes the Latin text on the left and the
English translation, with notes, on the right.
51
This course can be obtained from http://www.hieronymus.us.com/Venalia/IndLatin.htm. The
website is a bit archaic and they require you to mail in a check, upon receipt of which they will mail
the course with its audio component to you doorstep.
Sources: Primary 37
language more quickly and in a holistic way. The result is that the course creates
an immersion style of learning in which students learn how to think in and
how to use the Latin language. Siedl introduces classical Latin, ecclesiastical
Latin, and everyday Latin, which he spoke and taught in the context of the
Familiae Sancti Hieronymi in Clearwater, Florida. Students using this text
correctly should do very little memorization in the process of learning. You
simply read, reread, and listen until you understand the grammar, retain the
vocabulary, and are able to move forward. This author studied the text for one
hour a day for five days a week and listened to the audio component while
driving to work. On this schedule, it took about three months to complete the
course. The ecclesiastical component consists largely of the Athanasian Creed,
the Vulgate Bible, and elements taken from the Roman Catholic Latin liturgy.
This method helps students develop a basic Latin reading level with very little
effort. This course is not well-known, but this author has not found anything
else quite like or nor anything else that has come close to being as easy and
effective in developing the skill of reading Latin well.
Hans Orberg’s Lingua Latina per se Illustrata is an invaluable tool as well.52
There is no English in this series of books, which, in this author’s opinion,
makes it initially more difficult to use as a first Latin textbook than the
Siedl course, especially without the context of participating in a classroom.
However, Orberg’s series of texts are by far one of the best means of immersing
readers into the language in an interesting way. The first volume takes readers
through the story of a Latin family with 100 servants in ancient Rome. One of
the characters is eventually converted to Christianity, which gives the author
opportunity to introduce biblical citations in Latin. The second volume takes
readers largely through Roman mythology through excerpts taken from the
Aeneid. Orberg provides a host of supplemental booklets to this text as well,
which reinforce and build vocabulary and reading proficiency. In the case of the
first volume of his course, two of these supplemental booklets even expand the
main storyline. For those uncomfortable with reading a Latin-only textbook,
Jeanne Marie Neumann has prepared a Companion to volume one of Orberg’s
52
Hans H. Oerberg, Lingua Latina: Per Se Illustrata, Pars 1: Familia Latina (Newburyport, MA:
Domus Latina; Focus Publishing, 1990); Hans H Oerberg, Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata. Pars 2,
Pars 2 (Newburyport, MA: Domus Latina; Focus Publishing, 2003).
text, which explains grammatical concepts at greater length through English

explanations.53 Rather than looking up all new vocabulary terms, students
should use the pictures and word explanations in the margins and read and
re-read each paragraph until they understand the vocabulary. This cuts down
on memorization and produces long-term memory of the Latin language by
aiming at reading comprehension. This series of texts leads students to build
a much broader vocabulary than Siedl will. It can also help students become
more comfortable when working through Latin texts. Orberg’s course is less
immersive than Siedl’s, but it is also much broader in scope and one of the best
ways to learn the Latin language with very little memorization involved.
Cambridge Latin is a four-volume course that focuses on learning Latin
through induction and through reading.54 In contrast to Orberg, Cambridge
Latin attempts to immerse students quickly in the Latin language while
including a lot of English text, especially at the end of each chapter. The focus
of these books is primarily on lengthy reading sections exclusively in Latin.
The storyline introduces the history of the Roman Empire’s influence in
England and in Alexandria. Each chapter includes a concluding section (in
English) on the history treated in the chapter, with special stress on the Latin
vocabulary acquired in that chapter. Each volume also has a concise Latin
grammar appended to it, which together build gradually from beginning Latin
to more advanced levels. The downside of this course is that there is too much
material in English. The upshot of this course is that students still learn how to
read large blocks of Latin text with little memorization involved.
SPQR is a Latin App available for mobile devices. It includes a range of older
Latin grammars, the ability to use and make vocabulary cards, and a host of
classic and ecclesiastical Latin texts, including the Vulgate Bible, Augustine’s
Confessions, and Bede’s Ecclesiastical History. In addition to its inclusion of
interesting texts, the primary benefit of this tool is that readers can highlight
unknown words in Latin books and find their definitions without constantly
53
This resource appears under the following two titles, depending on the edition used: Jeanne Marie
Neumann, Lingua Latina: A College Companion Based on Hans Ørberg’s Latine Disco, with Vocabulary
and Grammar (Newburyport, MA: Focus Publishing, 2007); Jeanne Marie Neumann, A Companion
to Familia Romana: Based on Hans Orberg’s Latine Disco, with Vocabulary and Grammar, Second
(Newburyport, MA: Focus Publishing, 2016).
54
Stephanie M. Pope, Cambridge Latin Course, Unit 1 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001).
Sources: Primary 39
opening a separate Latin dictionary. Sometimes the app confuses words and
defines them incorrectly, yet readers with some facility in the Latin language
can ordinarily identify such mistakes easily. This can also become a test of how
we students are grasping the language. SPQR places a basic library of classic
and ecclesiastical Latin in the reader’s pocket, together with a host of tools that
make reading easier. This is a highly useful and inexpensive tool to build Latin
vocabulary and to practice reading in Latin.
How to retain Latin
After putting in the hard work needed to start reading Latin, how can students
continue to stretch their abilities to use the language while retaining what they
already know? The following suggestions represent some practices that the
author has found helpful in promoting these goals.
First, read something regularly. As with any language, the rule is, “use it or
lose it.” For studying Reformed scholasticism, I recommend reading the Latin
texts of Reformed creeds and theological compendia. Philip Schaff ’s Creeds
of Christendom is useful both due to its inclusion of Latin texts of creeds with
English translations and because it is inexpensive in print and available for free
in older editions through Google Books.55 In the case of the Second Helvetic
Confession, Schaff included the Latin text only. This enables students of Latin
to test their skills on a relatively simple document without the temptation to
keep glancing at an English translation. Johannes Wollebius’s Compendium
Theologiae Christianae is virtually an ideal text to practice Reformed scholastic
Latin.56 Students can obtain it for free from prdl.org and it is just over 300
pages in length with generous font size. Wollebius excelled at clear statements
of Reformed doctrine and concise definitions of scholastic terms. His structure
and language is similar to the Westminster Shorter and Larger Catechisms
(or rather vice versa), though roughly thirty years earlier, and he is easy to
read. If you want a more extensive volume that is also easy to read but that
55
Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Book House, 1983).
56
Johannes Wollebius, Compendium Theologiæ Christianæ, Editio Ultima Prioribus Multo Correctior,
9th ed. (Cantabrigiæ, 1655).
will keep you busy for a while, then Amandus Polanus’s Syntagma is an ideal
choice, though it is nearly 3,000 pages in length.57 This author began practicing
Latin by working through this text by digesting ten pages per day. The key
is to set small goals and to be consistent. Once a student completes a Latin
book, then they should start reading another. Small doses of Latin reading
are less overwhelming than overly ambitious goals and the material gained
accumulates more quickly than you may realize.
Second, especially with respect to theological students and ministers,
it helps to read something in Latin devotionally. One way to do this is to
incorporate the Vulgate Bible into a regular Bible reading plan. This author
did this initially, minus the prophets, for about four years consecutively. The
prophets present greater challenges for students of ecclesiastical Latin, both
in terms of style and vocabulary. The present author added the prophets to
his reading plan during the fourth reading cycle, since his grasp of the Latin
language had improved sufficiently at that point to handle the breadth of new
vocabulary and differences in style. The advantage of becoming familiar with
the Vulgate Bible is that, while those who read the Bible in English regularly
may know its contents well, doing so will help build a Latin vocabulary of well
over 10,000 words, creating virtual reading fluency. The text of the Vulgate in
SPQR is not as solid of a translation of Scripture as other critical editions,58 but
it carries the advantage of providing easy to obtain definitions of less familiar
terms at a glance as well as an easy way to flip back to the English text for
comparison if needed.
In conjunction with Bible reading, it can be helpful for ministers to
incorporate Latin Bible commentaries into sermon preparation as well. For
example, this author used Polanus on Malachi59 and Johannes Marckius on
Zechariah.60 Students will find that Latin scholastic commentaries in the
57
Polanus, Syntagma Theologiae Christianae.
58
For example, Robert Weber and Roger Gryson, eds., Biblia Sacra: Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem
(Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007).
59
Amandus Polanus, Analysis Libelli Prophetae Malachiae: Aliquot Praelectionibus Genevae Proposita a
Amando Polando a Polansdorf; Praemissi Sunt Duo Indices, Adiunctae Sunt Orationes Quatuor: I. De
Incarnatione Immanuelis Nostri Iesv Christi, Ii. De Crucis Christi Scientia & Communione, Iii. De Vita
& Obitu Oecolampadii, Cui Disputatio De Primatu Papae Inserta, Iv. De Prophetia Danielis (Basileae:
Per Conradum Waldkirch, 1597).
60
Johannes Marckius, In Haggaeum, Zecharijam, et Malachiam Commentarius, Seu Analysis Exegetica
(Amsterdam, 1701).
Sources: Primary 41
Reformed tradition such as these were often more thorough exegetically and
theologically than English commentaries available from the time period. Readers
can also search for such sources by biblical books using prdl.org. In addition,
then can find numerous Bible commentaries by Thomas Aquinas for free online
at corpusthomisticum.org. This is a way for such students to retain and to build
their Latin skills while seeking to labor prayerfully for the benefit Christ’s church.
Simultaneously, doing so adds to the breadth of primary source material relevant
to an academic research project related to Reformed scholasticism.
Third, find ways to do a lot of writing using Latin texts. This provides the
opportunity to digest and to interact with Latin texts by analyzing and applying
them to specific uses. Analyzing Latin texts in writing is most pertinent to
writing an academic project in the field of Reformed scholasticism. Writing
about Latin texts solidifies language skills and enables students to incorporate
concepts learned into their thought processes more easily. Pursuing a degree
program related to Reformed scholasticism will force a researcher to do this,
but such writing should not stop here. Even taking extensive notes on Latin
texts (partly in Latin, if you can do it) helps students build and retain facility
with the language. The point with all three of these suggestions is that you
need to learn to do something with the Latin language if you expect to make
learning it worthwhile. There are other ways to achieve these goals, but these
directions are designed to get students started.
How to obtain primary sources
After thinking through how to choose a topic, how to set a context using
primary sources, and how to learn to read primary sources in Latin, a few
words are in order about how to obtain such sources. Other works, such
as Kibbe’s From Topic to Thesis and van Asselt’s Introduction to Reformed
Scholasticism provide some overlapping and alternative directions in this
regard.61 The material below includes three of the most important resources
needed to locate and to read Reformed scholastic literature.
61
Take particular note of Kibbe’s advice regarding using Zotero to keep track of your bibliographic
material. From Topic to Thesis, 133–45. Zotero can save thousands of hours of time in formatting
Calvin Theological Seminary has collected an online and free Post

Reformation Digital Library (prdl.org). This resource contains links to primary
sources available for free from sources all over the Internet. This includes texts
related to Reformed scholasticism in multiple languages, especially in the area
of Latin post-Reformation literature. The database includes a number of key
medieval entries as well, which are important in setting a broad context for
the development of Reformed scholastic thought. PRDL’s greatest value lies
in collecting Reformed, Lutheran, Roman Catholic, and Medieval theological
literature from various online sites. Resources like this one put at your disposal
more primary source material than you can read in a lifetime and more than
you would have had access to in the late twentieth century by visiting rare
book rooms in libraries across Europe and North America. Online collections
like this one have literally changed the face of studies in Reformed scholastic
theology.
Google Books is one of the most impressive databases containing many
Reformed scholastic texts as well as countless other out-of-print resources.
While many of these sources are already represented in prdl.org, the amount
of literature available is so vast and it is growing so rapidly that students will
still likely find fresh material by doing their own searches using Google Books.
With regard to Latin texts, you might need to learn tricks for searching by
varying the conjugations of author’s names or book titles to find what you
need. One advantage of Google Books over other online options for primary
sources is that Google offers an eBook format for all available books that
readers can use through their Google Play app. This both makes reading easier
and enables students to keep track of their own digital libraries of primary
sources more conveniently.
For English primary sources related to Reformed scholasticism, Early
English Books Online (EEBO) is without peer for comprehensiveness. This
resource includes most printed English literature from 1400–1700. EEBO is a
digitized version of what previously was a microfilm collection. The digitized
database is fully searchable as well. EEBO used to be available only through
footnotes and in making bibliographies and it is free. You already have enough work to do without
formatting footnotes. Neglecting such resources is downright irresponsible and masochistic in
relation to working through a substantial academic research project of any size.
Sources: Primary 43
universities that subscribed to the service. As of 2015, however, the database

began to be published to the public for free online. The full database is
scheduled for public release in three increments, making the entire collection
available to everyone by 2025. Prdl.org has begun to incorporate key resources
from EEBO in their collection, but the full collection yields much broader
search results in relation to English language classic Reformed theology.
Some significant primary source authors
While your chosen topic will demand which Reformed scholastic authors you
should consult, it may help some students to introduce some important authors
from the Reformation, Early, High, and Late Orthodox periods to get them
started. Reading Muller’s Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics and Brill’s
Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy will broaden your exposure to significant
authors beyond this brief sketch.62 I have listed some significant works by most
of these authors, with English translations, where available, for wider use.
From the Reformation period, Calvin is obvious choice for obvious reasons.
He helped codify Reformed theology in his Institutes and commentaries and
he helped disseminate Reformed thought internationally through the Geneva
Academy.63 Martin Bucer (1491–1551) was an important German Reformer
who mediated between elements of Lutheran and Reformed theology. His
biblical commentaries, especially those on Romans and John, introduce good
examples of mingling exegetical theology and the loci communes method into
single works.64 Ulrich Zwingli (1484–1531) is, even more than Calvin, the father
of Reformed theology. His emphases differ from Calvin and from subsequent
62
Muller, PRRD; H. J. Selderhuis, ed., A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy (Leiden: Brill, 2013); See
also, Willem J. van Asselt and E. Dekker, Reformation and Scholasticism: An Ecumenical Enterprise
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001); Carl R. Trueman and R. Scott Clark, eds., Protestant
Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment (Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster, 1999).
63
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol.
XX–XXI, 2 vols., Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1960).
64
Martin Bucer, Metaphrasis Et Enarratio in Epist. D. Pauli Apostoli Ad Romanos, in Quibus Singulatim
Apostoli Omnia, Cum Argumenta, Tum Sententiae & Verba, Ad Autoritatem Divinae Scripturae,
Fidemque Ecclesiae Catholicae Tam Priscae Qum̉ Praesentis, Religios ̈ac Paul ̣fusius Excutiuntur
(Basileae, 1562).
Reformed theology in some respects, but his teaching at Zurich gave him
widespread influence.65 Heinrich Bullinger (1504–75), Zwingli’s successor
at Zurich, is a vital figure who was a theological bridge between Calvin and
Zwingli. He developed a consensus statement with Calvin with regard to the
Lord’s Supper66 and he wrote the Second Helvetic Confession, which continues
to be used by Reformed churches today. His Decades presents the entire
system of theology through a series of fifty sermons, which received wide
use in theological education, especially in England.67 Peter Martyr Vermigli
(1499–1562) was an Italian Reformer who taught students internationally,
including at Cambridge. While he did not prepare his Loci Communes for
publication, his students collected portions of his writings into a systematic
form that influenced generations of Reformed ministers.68 Wolfgang Musculus
(1497–1563) if an oft-overlooked German Reformer who taught at Bern in
Switzerland.69 His Loci Communes, in contrast to Calvin’s Institutes, contain
a full doctrine of the attributes of God and were studied widely.70 He is also
the only Reformer we know of on record who made the children of believers
participants in the Lord’s Supper, which makes him an interesting case study
on the covenant and the sacraments.71 Juan de Valdez (1509–41) was one of the
few influential Spanish Reformed theologians. Only one copy of his Dialogo de
65
An important work by Zwingli is Ulrich Zwingli, De Vera Et Falsa Religione, Commentarius (Zurich:
Christoph Froschauer, 1545).
66
Campi, Shifting Patterns of Reformed Tradition, 27:83–122.
67
Heinrich Bullinger, The Decades of Henry Bullinger, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1849).
68
Pietro Martire Vermigli, Loci Communes (London, 1576); Pietro Martire Vermigli, The Common
Places of the Most Famous and Renowmed Diuine Doctor Peter Martyr: Diuided into Foure Principall
Parts: With a Large Addition of Manie Theologicall and Necessarie Discourses, Some Neuer Extant
Before. Translated and Partlie Gathered by Anthonie Marten, One of the Sewers of Hir Maiesties Most
Honourable Chamber. (London: In Pater noster Rovve [by Henry Denham and Henry Middleton] at
the costs and charges of Henrie Denham, Thomas Chard, VVilliam Broome, and Andrew Maunsell,
1583).
69
Craig S. Farmer, The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century: The Johannine Exegesis of Wolfgang
Musculus, Oxford Studies in Historical Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 2–8.
70
Wolfgang Musculus, Loci Communes Sacrae Theologiae (Basel, 1567); Wolfgang Musculus, Common
Places of Christian Religion, Gathered by Wolfgangus Musculus, for the Vse of Suche as Desire the
Knowledge of Godly Truthe. Translated Out of Latine into Englishe. Hereunto Are Added Two Other
Treatises, Made by the Same Author, One of Othes, and an Other of Vsurye. with a Moste Perfecte and
Plentifull Table, trans. John Man (London: Printed by Reginalde Wolfe, 1563).
71
Jordan J. Ballor, Covenant, Causality, and Law: A Study in the Theology of Wolfgang Musculus, vol. 3,
Refo500 Academic Studies (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012).
Sources: Primary 45
Doctrina Christiana72 survived the Spanish Inquisition and it was rediscovered

only in 1925.73 On the Lutheran side, Martin Luther (1483–1546) and Philip
Melanchthon (1497–1560), his friend and associate, deserve special attention.
While all Reformed theologians respected Luther,74 Melanchthon influenced
many early Reformed authors. His Loci Communes, structured around the
book of Romans, served as the pattern for Calvin’s Institutes and he was one
of the primary influences in the Reformed development of the threefold use
of the law.75 Melanchthon was also a vital figure in developing the Lutheran
confessional tradition, which received stable form in the Book of Concord.
Several figures stand out for their seminal importance in Early Orthodoxy.
Andreas Hyperius (1511–64) was one of the first to develop a distinctively
Reformed theological method.76 Franciscus Junius (1545–1602) wrote the first
Reformed prolegomena and he developed the distinction between archetypal
and ectypal theology.77 Zacharias Ursinus (1534–83) was one of the primary
authors of the Heidelberg Catechism and influenced Reformed dogmatics
largely through his lectures on the catechism.78 Amandus Polanus (1561–1610)
was a professor at Basel. His Syntagma Christianae Theologiae was arguably
the most important Early Orthodox Reformed textbook, which he organized
following a Ramist structure of what man is to believe concerning God and
what duty God requires of man. He defense of the doctrine of Scripture against
72
Juan de Valdes, Dialogo de Doctrina Christiana (Mexico: Casa Unida de Publicationes, 1946).
73
Frances Luttikhuizen, Underground Protestantism in Sixteenth Century Spain: A Much Ignored Side
of Spanish History, vol. 30, Refo500 Academic Studies (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017),
73.
74
Robert Kolb, Irene Dingel, and L’ubomir Batka, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s
Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).
75
Philip Melanchthon, Loci Communes Theologici (Basel, 1550); Philipp Melanchthon, Melanchthon
on Christian Doctrine: Loci Communes, 1555, trans. Clyde Leonard Manschreck (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1965); Timothy J Wengert, Law and Gospel: Philip Melanchthon’s Debate with John
Agricola of Eisleben Over Poenitentia (Carlisle, Cumbria, and Grand Rapids, MI: Paternoster; Baker
Books, 1997).
76
Andreas Hyperius, Methodus Theologiae Adj. Eft. De Ejusdem Vita Et Obita Oratis Wigandi Arthii
(Basileae, 1562); Donald Sinnema, “The Distinction between Scholastic and Popular: Andreas
Hyperius and Reformed Scholasticism,” in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment (Eugene,
OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006), 127–44.
77
Franciscus Junius, De Theologia Vera; Ortu, Natura, Formis, Partibus, Et Modo (Lugduni Batavorum,
1594); Junius, A Treatise on True Theology.
78
Zacharias Ursinus and David Pareus, Corpus Doctrinae Orthodoxae: Sive, Catecharum Explicationum
D. Zachariae Ursini Opus Absolutum D. Davidis Parei Opera Extrema Recognitum … Adiuncta Sunt
Miscellanea Catechetica … ([Genevae]: sumptibus Samuelis Crispini, 1616).
Robert Bellarmine is particularly full and exhaustive.79 In this connection,

Polanus’s student and colleague, Johannes Wollebius (1589–1629), wrote one
of the most important and long-lasting compendiums of Reformed scholastic
theology.80 Jerome Zanhchius (1516–90) was most famous for his De Tribus
Elohim, which set the standard for Reformed trinitarian theology for almost
two centuries.81 He also engaged in Christological debates with Lutheran
authors.82 Theodore Beza (1519–1605) and Lambert Daneau (1535–1690)
were two vital French theologians who marked the transition into scholastic
theology at the Geneva Academy. Among other things, Beza became known
widely for his New Testament commentaries.83 His Confessio Christiane Fidei
represents his systematic summary of Reformed doctrine.84 Daneau illustrates
Reformed interaction with the medieval tradition, especially through his
commentary on the first book of Peter Lombard’s Senetentia.85
The number of significant authors from the period of High Orthodoxy is
staggering. Gisbertus Voetius (1585–1676) trained an entire generation of
Dutch Reformed ministers and had international prestige.86 He is best known
79
Polanus, Syntagma Theologiae Christianae; Byung Soo Han, Symphonia Catholica: The Merger of
Patristic and Contemporary Sources in the Theological Method of Amandus Polanus (1561–1610), vol.
30, Reformed Historical Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015).
80
Wollebius, Compendium.
81
Jerome Zanchius, De Tribus Elohim, Aeterno Patre, Filio, Et Spiritu Sancto, Uno Eodemque Iehova,
Libri Xiii. in Duas Distincti Partes. Pars Prior: Ad Edmundum Grindallum, Archiepiscopum
Eboracensem, Angliaeque Primatem Amplissimum. in Qua, Tota Orthodoxa De Hoc Magno Mysterio
Doctrina, Ex Sacrarum Literarum Fontibus, Explicatur, & Confirmatur. Cum Indice Triplici (Neostadii
Palatinorum, 1589).
82
Benjamin R. Merkle, Defending the Trinity in the Reformed Palatinate: The Elohistae, Oxford
Theology and Religion Monographs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016); Stefan Lindholm,
Jerome Zanchi (1516–90) and the Analysis of Reformed Scholastic Christology, vol. 37, Reformed
Historical Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016).
83
Theodorus Beza, Theodori Bezae Annotationes Maiores in Novum Dn. Nostri Iesu Christi
Testamentum: In Duas Distinctae Partes, Quarum Prior Explicationem in Quatuor Evangelistas Et
Acta Apostolorum, Posterior Verò in Epistolas Et Apocalypsin Continet: Quibus Etiam Adiuncti Sunt
Indices Rerum Ac Verborum Locupletissimi (Genevae: J. des Planches, 1594).
84
Theodorus Beza, Confessio Christianae Fidei, et Eiusdem Collatio Cum Papisticis Haeresibus, 1560.
85
Lambert Daneau, In Petri Lombardi Episcopi Parisiensis (qui Magister Sententiarum Appellatur)
Librum Primum Sententiarum, Qui Est De Vero Deo, Essentiâ Quidem Uno: Personis Autem Trino:
Lamberti Danaei Commentarius Triplex. Unus, Ad Marginem Ipsius Libri, in Quo Singularum
Distinctionum Artificium Breviter Explicatur. Alter, Ubi Locorum À Lombardo Prolatorum Accurata
Collatio Facta Est. Tertius, Qui Censuram Doctrinae, Methodique Lombardi, Tum Ex Ipso Dei Verbo,
Tum Ex Veris Sententiarum Scribendarum Praeceptis Habet (Genevae: Apud Eustathium Vignon,
1580); Olivier Fatio, Méthode Et Théologie: Lambert Daneau Et Les Débuts De La Scolastique
Réformée (Genève: Droz, 1976).
86
Andreas J. Beck, Gisbertus Voetius 1589–1676 Sein Theologieverständnis Und Seine Gotteslehre
Sources: Primary 47
for his instructions to theological students and for his disputations.87 Johannes
Cocceius (1603–69) taught an eccentric covenant theology and became
prominent in his debates with Voetius and through his influence on Reformed
covenantal thought.88 Petrus van Mastricht (1630–1706) was a prominent
student of Voetius. It has become common knowledge that Jonathan Edwards
(1703–58) remarked that Mastricht’s Theoretico-Practica Theologia was the best
book that he had read outside of the Bible.89 Herman Witsius (1636–1708) was
another Voetian who is largely remembered for his outstanding Oeconomia
Foederum Cum Hominibus.90 However, one should not overlook his important
works on the Apostle’s Creed and the Lord’s Prayer, which give a more rounded
view of his system of theology.91 In Britain, some outstanding names include
John Owen (1616–83),92 Richard Baxter (1615–91),93 William Twisse (1578–
1646), Samuel Rutherford (1600–61), and Edward Leigh (1602–71). To single
out two names, Twisse was the prolocutor (moderator) of the Westminster
87
Gisbertus Voetius, Exercitia Et Bibliotheca Studiosi Theologiæ (Rheno-Trajecti: Apud Wilhelmum
Strick, 1644); Gijsbert Voetius, Selectarum Disputationum Theologicarum Pars Prima (Quinta.
Accedunt Dissertatio Epistolica De Termino Vitæ. Exercitatio De Prognosticis Cometarum. Antehac
Seorsim Editæ), 5 vols. (Ultrajecti, 1648).
88
Johannes Cocceius, Collationes De Foedere Et Testamento Dei: Ad Illustrandam Methodum &
Analogian Doctrinæ Pietatis in Scripturis Traditam (Franekeræ: Apud I. Balck, 1648); Johannes
Cocceius, The Doctrine of the Covenant and Testament of God, trans. Casey Carmichael, vol. 3,
Classic Reformed Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2016); Willem J. van
Asselt, The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669) (Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill, 2001);
Brian J. Lee, Johannes Cocceius and the Exegetical Roots of Federal Theology, Reformed Historical
Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008).
89
Peter van Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia. Qua, Per Singula Capita Theologica, Pars
Exegetica, Dogmatica, Elenchtica & Practica, Perpetua Successione Conjugantur (Trajecti ad
Rhenum, and Amstelodami: Sumptibus Societatis, 1715); Adriaan C. Neele, Petrus Van Mastricht
(1630–1706) Reformed Orthodoxy: Method and Piety (Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill, 2009). At the
time of writing this book, the first volume of Mastricht’s work was being prepared for publication in
English translation.
90
Herman Witsius, De Oeconomia Foederum Dei Cum Hominibus Libri Quatuor, 2 vols. (Trajecti
ad Rhenum: apud Franciscum Halmam, Gulielmum van de Water, 1694); Herman Witsius, The
Economy of the Covenants between God and Man, ed. Joel R. Beeke, trans. William Crookshank, 2
vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2010).
91
Herman Witsius, Sacred Dissertations: On the Apostles’ Creed, trans. Donald Fraser, 2 vols. (Grand
Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2010); Herman Witsius, Sacred Dissertations on the Lord’s
Prayer, ed. Joel R. Beeke, trans. William Pringle (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books,
2010).
92
Carl R. Trueman, John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man (Aldershot and Burlington,
VT: Ashgate, 2007); Kelly M. Kapic and Mark Jones, eds., The Ashgate Research Companion to John
Owen’s Theology (Farnham and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2012).
93
Cooper, John Owen, Richard Baxter, and the Formation of Nonconformity; Simon J. G. Burton, The
Hallowing of Logic the Trinitarian Method of Richard Baxter’s Methodus Theologiae (Leiden and
Boston, MA: Brill, 2012).
Assembly and Leigh wrote one of the only English language scholastic systems
of theology.94 Twisse developed an international reputation for his writings on
middle knowledge, predestination, and providence.95 In Switzerland, Francis
Turretin (1623–87) and Johannes Heidegger (1633–98) stand out for teaching
theology at Geneva and Zurich, respectively, and for their combined work on
the Formula Consensus Helvetica, which was one of the last written Reformed
confessions of faith (though with limited influence).96 Leonard Ryssen (1636–
1700) also prepared a popular abridgement of Turretin’s theology.97 Johann
Gerhard (1582–1637) was the most important Lutheran scholastic theologian
of this period, whose Loci Communes received wide attention from Reformed
scholastic authors.98 It is arguably the longest systematic theology ever written,
spanning seventeen large volumes.99
Late Orthodoxy becomes more diversified and difficult to classify. This
period was marked simultaneously by persistence, alteration, and even
decline within Reformed theology. The scholastic form of theology became
an increasing matter of debate, bearing widely differing results ranging from
radical conservatism to radical transformation in method and theology. The
best that I can do is to provide a few names and seed thoughts for further
study here. Thomas Boston (1676–1732) was a Scottish Reformed theologian
94
Leigh, Body of Divinity.
95
William Twisse, Dissertatio de Scientia Media, Tribus Libris Absoluta (Arnheimium, 1639); William
Twisse, The Riches of God’s Love Unto the Vessels of Mercy, Consistent with His Absolute Hatred or
Reprobation of the Vessels of Wrath, Or, An Answer unto a Book Entitled, God’s Love unto Mankind
(Oxford, 1653); William Twisse, Vindiciae Gratiae, Potestatis ac Providentiae Dei, hoc est, ad Examen
Libelli Perkinsiani de Praedestinationis Mode et Ordine, Institutum a Jacobo Arminio, Responsio
Scholastica (Amsterdam, 1632).
96
Francis Turretin, Institutio Theologiae Elencticae, vol. 1, 3 vols. (Geneva, 1679); Turretin, Institutes of
Elenctic Theology; Johann Heinrich Heidegger, Corpus Theologiae Christianae, vol. 1, 2 vols. (Tiguri,
1732); Beach, Christ and the Covenant; James E. Bruce, Rights in the Law: The Importance of God’s
Free Choices in the Thought of Francis Turretin, vol. 24 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013).
97
Leonard Ryssen, Francisci Turretini Ss. Theologiae Doctoris Et Professoris Compendium Theologiae
Didactico-Elencticae, Ex Theologorum Nostrorum Institutionibus Theologicis Auctum Et Illustratum:
Ut Praeter Explicationes Theticas Et Problematicas in Controversiis Verum Statum Proponatur,
“Prôton Pseudos” Detegatur, Vera Sententia Confirmetur, Argumentis Ad Paucas Classes Revocatis,
Praecipuae Adversariorum Exceptiones Et Objectiones Diluantur, Calumniae Etiam Adversarioru,
Abstergantur (Amsterdam, 1695).
98
Johann Gerhard, Loci Theologici Cum Pro Adstruenda Veritate Tum Pro Destruenda Quorumvis
Contradicentium Falsitate Per Theses Nervose Solide Et Copiose Explicati. 5. 5., ed. Johann
Friedrich Cotta, 20 vols. (Tubingae: Cotta, 1766); David P. Scaer, “Johann Gerhard’s Doctrine of
the Sacraments,” in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment, ed. R. Scott Clark and Carl R.
Trueman (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006).
99
Concordia University Press is in the process of translating this work in fifteen volumes.
Sources: Primary 49
who stood at the heart of the so-called Marrow Controversy.100 John Gill
(1697–1771) was a Baptist hyper-Calvinist who retained the basic structure of
a scholastic Reformed theological system with his own distinctive emphases.101
Thomas Ridgley (1667–1734) was an English minister who wrote his system
of theology by way of commenting on the Westminster Larger Catechism.102
Bernardinus de Moor (1709–80) was a Dutch student of Johannes Markcius
(1656–1731), who wrote a seven-volume commentary on his teacher’s
compendium of theology.103 This project represents an expansion and
summary of the Reformed scholastic tradition that is highly conservative in
method and content.104 The last Late Orthodox theologian that I list here is
Jean-Alphonse Turretin (1671–1737), who was son of Francis Turretin and
his successor at Geneva. Jean-Alphonse marked the beginning of a shift away
from scholastic Reformed theology in Geneva into the early Enlightenment
quest for a Christianity built more on natural theology and in search for a
theological system consisting almost entirely of “fundamental articles” of the
faith.105 According to Martijn Bac and Theo Pleizier, Willem van Asselt taught
that “the major break in church history is the Enlightenment rather than the
Reformation and Renaissance period.”106 The select list of authors surveyed
here illustrates this point well.
The authors listed in all three periods of Reformed orthodoxy only scratch
the surface in relation to what resources are readily available to students.
100
Thomas Boston, The Complete Works of the Late Rev. Thomas Boston, Ettrick: Including His Memoirs
(Wheaton, IL: R.O. Roberts, 1980); William VanDoodewaard, The Marrow Controversy and Seceder
Tradition: Marrow Theology in the Associate Presbytery and Associate Synod Secession Churches of
Scotland (1733–1799), Reformed Historical-Theological Studies (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation
Heritage Books, 2011).
101
John Gill, A Body of Doctrinal Divinity: Or, a System of Evangelical Truths, Deduced from the Sacred
Scriptures. in Two Volumes. by John Gill (London: Printed for the author, and sold by George Keith,
1769); Michael A. G. Haykin, ed., The Life and Thought of John Gill (1697–1771): A Tercentennial
Appreciation (Leiden: Brill, 1997).
102
Thomas Ridgley, A Body of Divinity (London, 1731).
103
Dolph te Velde referred to de Moor as the Last Voetian. te Velde, “Reformed Theology and
Scholasticism,” 222.
104
de Moor, Continuous Commentary on Marckius.
105
Martin I. Klauber, “Theological Transition in Geneva from Jean-Alphonse Turretin to Jacob Vernet,”
in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006), 256–70.
106
However, this list has highlighted some of the major figures in each period and
their primary writings as they relate to scholasticism in particular.
Conclusion
The above material is designed to get students started in studying Reformed

scholasticism in relation to using primary sources. Researchers may come with
topics in mind that they wish to pursue. A topic should interest the student
enough to pursue it through to the end. However, you must approach your
topic with more questions than answers and your questions may change as you
read. This process begins with learning to identify and to use primary sources.
Students of Reformed scholasticism need to know what to start reading and
what to do with what they read. They need the required language tools to read
what they need to and they need to know where to get their sources. They also
need to learn through the process of reading which sources to prioritize. The
list of important authors and their works at the end of this section provides
enough material to get started and to keep a student going for a while, possibly
to the end.
You still may not have a thesis, however. Having one is indispensable to give
focus to your research and to prevent you from getting lost in the daunting
amount of available materials. Michael Kibbe’s From Topic to Thesis can help
students further learn how to do this more fully. The material below will
illustrate the cyclical nature of historical research and writing as well. For now,
readers should use the above material to learn what they are looking for in
relation to the theses they develop. The author will provide more help in this
area below as well. Before getting to that point, however, it is important to
expand the discussion of basic research methodology into using secondary
sources and into learning more about historical methodology before learning
how to narrow a thesis statement and to write and outline a research project.
3
Sources: Secondary
To borrow a scholastic distinction, primary sources are a necessary cause of a

good research project, but they are not a sufficient cause of one.1 It is possible
to write a relatively sound analysis of a subject from primary sources while
missing essential relevant points due to neglecting secondary literature about
the subject. No one knows everything and, as we have seen, setting a historical
context can become virtually infinitely expansive. Students of Reformed
scholasticism need to interact humbly and respectfully with other scholars
who have written in their field of study or in areas potentially related to that
field of study.
The point of this chapter is that to study Reformed scholasticism, students
must become familiar with the secondary literature relevant to their research
topics. Accordingly, the material below addresses how to identify potentially
relevant secondary sources, how to use them properly, and how to obtain
needed resources.
How to identify relevant secondary sources
Remember that secondary literature related to a topic refers to written material

reflecting on a subject after the event in question. Recent scholarly secondary
sources should take priority when researching Reformed scholasticism,
since such materials bring students up to speed with current conversations
1
For example, Maccovius noted that the analogia fidei is necessary for interpreting Scripture, but
that it is not sufficient by itself for doing so. Johannes Maccovius, Scholastic Discourse: Johannes
Maccovius (1588–1644) on Theological and Philosophical Distinctions and Rules (Apeldoorn:
Instituut voor Reformatieonderzoek, 2009), 77.
relevant to their chosen topics. Some of the examples in the preceding

chapter illustrate the value of solid secondary literature, to the degrees that
such literature engages fruitfully with primary source literature. Secondary
literature can teach students what questions to ask, where to look in relation
to primary sources, and they help students learn where their own research
can potentially contribute something to ongoing scholarly discussions about
a subject. Identifying relevant secondary literature relates to learning how
to both recognize scholarly sources and find literature analogous to one’s
subject.
The matter of first importance here is learning how to recognize
scholarly sources related to Reformed scholasticism. While Kibbe’s counsel
regarding scholarly sources in From Topic to Thesis is relevant here, most
of his advice relates narrowly to biblical studies rather than to historical
theology. The material below narrows the focus on secondary sources to
materials that will immediately help those studying Reformed scholastic
theology.
Scholarly secondary sources, as opposed to popular ones, are important
because they ask different questions in light of their different purposes. Instead
of asking whether a topic is useful, scholarly resources ask historical questions
related to the development of historical ideas in historical contexts. Scholarly
sources thus accomplish different things that popular-level writings do.
Scholarly secondary literature is also subject to peer review by other experts
in the field, both prior to and after publication (through reviews and other
published interaction). Such features make them invaluable for doing serious
research in this field.
One way to determine which secondary sources are relevant lies in
identifying important series of books, publishers, authors, and journals. Since
the primary target audience for this book comes from the English-speaking
world, most of the material surveyed narrows its focus to English literature
about Reformed scholasticism.
Books and publishers
Several publishers include series of books related directly to Reformed

orthodox and scholastic theology. The list below does not pretend to be
Sources: Secondary 53
exhaustive. Instead, it provides students with a starting point to pursue their

explorations of Reformed scholastic theology.
In the Netherlands, Brill is preeminent for publishing materials related
to this subject in several series of books. Brill’s Studies in Church history,
Studies in Reformed Theology, and Companion series include many
useful scholarly sources. These include items such as van Asselt’s work on
Cocceius,2 a volume on Reformed orthodoxy and philosophy,3 the authority
of Scripture in Reformed theology,4 Puritanism in relation to Reformed
orthodoxy,5 A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy,6 and a large number
of other resources related to Reformed scholasticism, both in terms of
methodology and content. Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism,
which is a feschrift for Richard Muller, stands out as immediately relevant
to the development of Protestant scholastic theology due to the fact that
it focuses narrowly on the development of theological schools and their
relation to the church.7 While secondary literature is always liable to provoke
disagreement at points as well as raise questions for further study, Brill’s
books are always well-researched and provide a consistently reliable source
of secondary literature.
Oxford’s Studies in Historical Theology are also useful in this regard. The
volumes included in this series encompass early church and medieval studies
as well as ones related to the development of Reformed thought and beyond.
This series is worth monitoring for useful authors and topics. It includes
volumes on late seventeenth-century theological developments in England,8
2
Willem J. van Asselt, The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669) (Leiden and Boston,
MA: Brill, 2001).
3
Aza Goudriaan, Reformed Orthodoxy and Philosophy, 1625–1750 Gisbertus Voetius, Petrus Van
Mastricht, and Anthonius Driessen (Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill, 2006).
4
Henk Van den Belt, The Authority of Scripture in Reformed Theology: Truth and Trust, Studies in
Reformed Theology (Leiden: Brill, 2014).
5
6
H. J. Selderhuis, ed., A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy (Leiden: Brill, 2013).
7
Jordan J. Ballor, David S. Sytsma, and Jason Zuidema, eds., Church and School in Early Modern
Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of a Theological Tradition, vol.
170, Studies in the History of Christian Traditions (Leiden: Brill, 2013).
8
Dewey D. Wallace, Shapers of English Calvinism, 1660–1714: Variety, Persistence, and Transformation
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2011).
debates between Calvin and Lutherans over Christological exegesis,9 John

Owen,10 British trinitarian debates,11 the development of the filioque doctrine
throughout history,12 and several others. Oxford has published numerous
other useful volumes related to Reformed scholasticism as well, including
Chad van Dixhoorn’s seminal work on the Westminster Assembly,13 The
Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology,14 The Oxford Handbook of Martin
Luther’s Theology,15 Brannon Ellis’s study of Calvin’s treatment of eternal
generation and his relation to later Reformed thought,16 Merkle’s study of
Jerome Zanchi’s development of trinitarian theology from Hebrew grammar,17
and many others are indispensable for students interested in related topics.
Some Oxford compilation volumes include chapters on Reformed orthodox
theology as well, such as their handbooks on the Trinity, Christology, and
Sacramental Theology.18 Oxford sets a high standard for historical theology
and their published treatments of topics related to Reformed scholasticism
aim at setting a very broad context. Works such as these are not only valuable
resources for doing research, but they serve as a model as to how on should do
research and write historical theology.
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht’s Reformed Historical Theology series is related
most directly to the field of Reformed scholasticism, since the entire series is
9
G. Sujin Pak, The Judaizing Calvin: Sixteenth-Century Debates over the Messianic Psalms (Oxford:
10
Crawford Gribben, John Owen and English Puritanism: Experiences of Defeat, Oxford Studies in
Historical Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016).
11
Paul Chang-Ha Lim, Mystery Unveiled: The Crisis of the Trinity in Early Modern England (New York:
12
A. Edward Siecienski, The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy, Oxford Studies in Historical
Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010).
13
Chad B. Van Dixhoorn, The Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly, 1643–1652, 5 vols.
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).
14
Ulrich L. Lehner, Richard A. Muller, and A. G. Roeber, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern
Theology, 1600–1800 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016).
15
Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).
16
Brannon Ellis, Calvin, Classical Trinitarianism, and the Aseity of the Son (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2012).
17
Theology and Religion Monographs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016).
18
Gilles Emery and Matthew Levering, eds., The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity (Oxford and New
York: Oxford University Press, 2011); Francesca Aran Murphy, ed., The Oxford Handbook of
Christology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015); Hans Boersma and Matthew Levering, eds.,
The Oxford Handbook of Sacramental Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015).
devoted exclusively to historic Reformed thought. A good number of these

books began as PhD dissertations, many of which came to fruition under
Richard Muller, Willem van Asselt, and other recognized scholars in this field.
As of the time of writing this book, this series is breaking fifty volumes, treating
a range of Reformed authors and theological topics. These include authors
such as Francis Turretin,19 Thomas Goodwin (1600–80),20 John Owen,21
Amandus Polanus (1561–1610),22 John Edwards (1637–1716),23 Campegius
Virtringa (1659–1722),24 and many more. This series also treats a wide range
of theological topics, including diversity in the Reformed tradition,25 the ordo
salutis,26 covenant theology,27 and other vital aspects of Reformed thought.
Some volumes include multi-author edited collections on particular subjects,
such as John Calvin and Richard Hooker.28 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht also
has a related Reformation 500 series that focuses on similar issues in relation
19
J. Mark Beach, Christ and the Covenant: Francis Turretin’s Federal Theology as a Defense of the
Doctrine of Grace (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007); James E. Bruce, Rights in the
Law: The Importance of God’s Free Choices in the Thought of Francis Turretin, vol. 24 (Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013).
20
Ruprecht, 2010).
21
Ryan M. McGraw, “A Heavenly Directory”: Trinitarian Piety, Public Worship, and a Reassessment of
John Owen’s Theology, Reformed Historical Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014);
Andrew M. Leslie, The Light of Grace: John Owen on the Authority of Scripture and Christian Faith,
22
Byung Soo Han, Symphonia Catholica: The Merger of Patristic and Contemporary Sources in the
Theological Method of Amandus Polanus (1561–1610), vol. 30, Reformed Historical Theology
23
Jeongmo Yoo, John Edwards (1637–1716) on Human Free Choice and Divine Necessity: The Debate
on the Relation between Divine Necessity and Human Freedom in Late Seventeenth-Century and Early
Eighteenth-Century England, vol. 22 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013).
24
Charles K. Telfer, Wrestling with Isaiah: The Exegetical Methodology of Campegius Vitringa (1659–
1722), vol. 38, Reformed Historical Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016).
25
Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones, eds., Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity
and Debates within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism, vol. 17, Reformed Historical Theology
26
J. V. Fesko, Beyond Calvin: Union with Christ and Justification in Early Modern Reformed Theology
(1517–1700), vol. 20, Reformed Historical Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012).
27
Brian J. Lee, Johannes Cocceius and the Exegetical Roots of Federal Theology, Reformed Historical
Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008); J. V. Fesko, The Covenant of Redemption:
Origins, Development, and Reception, vol. 35, Reformed Historical Theology (Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016).
28
Herman J. Selderhuis, Calvinus Pastor Ecclesiae Papers of the Eleventh International Congress on
Calvin Research, vol. 39, Reformed Historical Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
2016); W. Bradford Littlejohn and Scott N. Kindred-Barnes, eds., Richard Hooker and Reformed
Orthodoxy, vol. 40, Reformed Historical Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017).
primarily to sixteenth-century authors and topics. The vast majority of these

volumes are heavily situated in historical contexts, though some draw less
widely from contemporary cross-confessional primary source material than
others do. The narrower focus of these books than comparable series’ should
make this publisher stand out as an excellent starting point for students of
Reformed scholasticism.
Ashgate has produced some substantial and consistently excellent volumes
related to this field. This includes several important volumes on John Owen’s
theology.29 Ashgate also publishes works on important medieval thinkers
and delves into late orthodox and evangelical theologians, such as Phillip
Doddridge (1702–51).30 Perusing their website periodically will often become
fruitful in looking for key theologians and theological topics.
Students should also not overlook Manchester University Press. While their
range of publications is much smaller than the others listed above, the select
titles that they carry are excellent models of sound historical theology. Hunter
Powell’s outstanding work on debates over church power at the Westminster
Assembly, cited in the preceding chapter, appears through this publisher.31
Manchester also plans to publish an edited volume on debates over church
polity in Reformed orthodoxy under the title, The Keys of the Kingdom, which
promises to be a substantial and comprehensive contribution to historical
scholarship for those interested in this subject.
Cambridge University Press includes a number of interesting volumes
related to scholastic theology. Cambridge has produced vital stand-alone
volumes, such as Sarah Mortimer’s work on early English Socinianism.32 Their
Introduction to Medieval Theology is also, in this author’s opinion, one of the
best entry points into the rise of scholastic theology, especially in relation
29
Carl R. Trueman, John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man (Aldershot and Burlington,
VT: Ashgate, 2007); Kelly M. Kapic and Mark Jones, eds., The Ashgate Research Companion to John
Owen’s Theology (Farnham and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2012); Tim Cooper, John Owen, Richard
Baxter, and the Formation of Nonconformity (Farnham and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011).
30
Robert Strivens, Philip Doddridge and the Shaping of Evangelical Dissent, Ashgate Studies in
Evangelicalism (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2015).
31
2015).
32
Sarah Mortimer, Reason and Religion in the English Revolution: The Challenge of Socinianism
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).
to the nature of theology, piety, and the Trinity.33 Some of their compilation
volumes, such as The Cambridge Companion to Puritanism, The Cambridge
Companion to the Trinity, and The Cambridge Companion to Reformed
Theology include valuable historical essays on classic Reformed thought.34
Like the abovementioned publishers, Cambridge consistently produces high-
quality historical research in this field.
Wipf and Stock publishes volumes on Reformed theology of varying quality.
These works are generally helpful, though some of them are less contextually
grounded than the preceding examples. For example, Edwin Tay on Owen on
the Atonement is excellent in terms of its analysis, though requiring a bit more
comparison with continental Reformed authors.35 On the other hand, Brian
Kay misses much of Owen’s context on the Trinity due to his limited appeal to
the broader Reformed and medieval contexts of trinitarian thought.36 Readers
should remember as well that, in cooperation with Paternoster, this publisher
includes Clark and Trueman’s indispensable high-quality volume on Protestant
Scholasticism.37 They include other individual studies covering individual
figures, such as Samuel Rutherford,38 and the development of classic Reformed
systematic theology.39 While readers should not overlook this publisher, they
should also be aware that many of the volumes produced by them border on
self-publication, which accounts for the varying quality of these works.
T&T Clark is an important publisher for modern systematic theology in
particular, which often includes forays into Reformed orthodox/scholastic
thought. Their materials are always worth consulting and their books are always
33
Rik Van Nieuwenhove, An Introduction to Medieval Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2012).
34
John Coffey and Paul C. H. Lim, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Puritanism (Cambridge, and
New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008); Peter C. Phan, The Cambridge Companion to the
Trinity (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011); Selderhuis, A Companion to
Reformed Orthodoxy.
35
Edwin E. M. Tay, “The Priesthood of Christ in the Atonement Theology of John Owen (1616–1683),”
PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh, 2009.
36
Brian Kay, Trinitarian Spirituality: John Owen and the Doctrine of God in Western Devotion
(Bletchley, Milton Keynes and Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2007).
37
Carl R. Trueman and R. Scott Clark, eds., Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment (Carlisle,
Cumbria: Paternoster, 1999).
38
Guy M. Richard, The Supremacy of God in the Theology of Samuel Rutherford (Eugene, OR: Wipf &
Stock, 2009).
39
Jan van Vliet, Rise of the Reformed System: The Intellectual Heritage of William Ames (Milton Keynes:
Paternoster, 2013).
thought provoking and worth the time invested in them. However, some of
their historical studies, while valuable for their theological analyses, require
greater contextual development. Alan Spence’s Incarnation and Inspiration is an
example of this, since he cites Owen and contemporary authors extensively, but
he includes little interaction with international Reformed orthodox theology.40
His treatment of Owen’s Christology in relation to his Pneumatology on his
own terms is clear, insightful, and accurate, but the lack of interaction with
Owen’s broader intellectual world makes it appear as though no one else from
the time period made comparable connections between these two theological
loci. By contrast, Maarten Wisse and Hugo Meijer have suggested elsewhere
that Owen’s views had both medieval precedent and contemporary parallels,
both of which areas can yield further fruitful research.41
Baker Academic has published widely recognized volumes by authors
such as Richard Muller and Willem van Asselt, among other leading scholars
in this field. This makes them a useful resource for the study of Reformed
scholasticism, though readers should note that Baker produces a smaller
number of resources related to this field than other comparable publishers.
The same comments are in order with respect to Eerdmans.
Many other publishers include books related to classic Reformed theology.
As students digest important secondary literature in relation to the publishers
discussed explicitly here, they will learn to follow the bibliography in these
works, which will increasingly expand their horizons as they search for scholarly
secondary literature. In addition to following publishers and series of books,
it will be helpful to ask friends and recognized scholars to provide advice and
direction for further research as well. Do not hesitate to contact scholars and
authors with questions related to their work. Their contact information can
generally be obtained from their academic institutions or through other online
resources. This author has found that authors are usually generous with their
time and counsel in this regard and that they are ordinarily excited that others
are interested in their research. For example, the author once contacted Paul
40
Alan Spence, Incarnation and Inspiration: John Owen and the Coherence of Christology (London and
New York: T & T Clark, 2007).
41
Maarten Wisse and Hugo Meijer, “Pneumatology: Tradition and Renewal,” in A Companion to
Reformed Orthodoxy, vol. 40, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2013),
465–518.
Lim about his work on Socinianism, who provided generous counsel even
though he and the author have never met to this day. Contact with authors
and scholars can also lead to developing international friendships leading to
ongoing conversations about research that will enrich your work.
One last research tip regarding finding relevant secondary literature is
to follow important authors and their students. Even when authors, such as
Muller, write for non-academic publishers they have something useful to say
in relation to historical theology. Mark Jones on antinomianism is a good
example of this as is A Puritan Theology.42 However, use caution and exercise
discernment here. Outstanding scholars are not merely right due to their
reputation. Even outstanding and reputable scholars can stretch historical
evidence to its limits at times.43 Primary sources always trump secondary ones
as evidence for framing arguments. If you must disagree with a recognized
author, especially when their work is printed through a reputable publisher,
then you should do so as humbly and reservedly as possible in your writing.
Published articles
The same general principles relevant to identifying scholarly books related to

Reformed scholasticism apply to looking for published articles. Rather than
providing another extensive list of examples here, this section instead gives
general suggestions. The advantage of using scholarly articles rather than
merely published books is that articles are often able to investigate specific
narrow questions that may not appear in the context of a book. Scholars in
an academic field often write more articles than books and students can miss
significant material without some reference to them. Ideally, university access
will enable students to search databases to find scholarly articles related to
their research topics. Historical journals published through universities
known for sound historical research, such as Oxford, Cambridge, Leiden,
and Amsterdam, are ordinarily a reliable source of valuable well-researched
42
Mark Jones, Antinomianism: Reformed Theology’s Unwelcome Guest? Philipsburg, NJ: P&R
Publishing, 2013; Joel R. Beeke and Mark Jones, A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (Grand Rapids,
MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012).
43
For example, see my review of Gribben, John Owen and English Puritanism; Ryan M. McGraw,
“A Review of Crawford Gribben, John Owen and English Puritanism: Experiences of Defeat,”
Westminster Theological Journal (2016): 353–4.
articles. In relation to Reformed scholasticism, some journals that stand out

are Brill’s Journal of Reformed Theology, the International Journal of Systematic
Theology, Westminster Theological Journal, Calvin Theological Journal, Mid-
America Journal of Theology, the Journal for the History of Reformed Pietism,
and many others. Working through books produced by reputable publishers
and by established authors in this field will help students develop ideas
regarding where to look for more articles as well, since a large number of
academic journals exist that include essays related to historic Reformed
theology whether or not the journal’s title gives students clues in this direction.
How to use secondary sources
Given that primary sources should form the basis of sound historical research
and writing, it can be helpful to give some further guidance on how to use
secondary sources responsibly. The suggestions that follow represent practices
that the present author has found useful in his own research through a creative
process of trial and error.
Prioritize secondary sources that are related most immediately to your
subject. Look for scholarly monographs related directly to your subject, but
also search for dissertations. If you are writing on John Calvin’s view of the
church, for example, then you obviously should start by searching for secondary
literature on Calvin’s ecclesiology. In addition to the counsel above concerning
searching for books from specific publishers, one way to find books written on
a subject like this one is to search by relevant key words using bookfinder.com.
Many of the books a student discovers through this kind of broad search will
be irrelevant to his or her research, but this resource sometimes yields results
from publishers that students may not have thought to consult. In regard to
Calvin’s ecclesiology, it will be helpful to look at material covering analogous
subjects as well, such as the ecclesiology of contemporary Reformers, especially
like Theodore Beza, who was Calvin’s successor in Geneva.
In this connection, students should attempt to use doctoral dissertations
related to their subjects, though with some caution. While dissertations
represent earned doctorates, not all are of publishable quality. Some dissertations
remain unpublished for good reasons. Ordinarily this results from a failure to
set historical contexts adequately. Even with regard to published dissertations,

students should become familiar with the methods approved by each publisher
in light of the consistent trajectory of their finished products. Other dissertations
are pure gold, such as Knapp on Owen’s exegetical method, yet they remain
unpublished due to the personal reasons of their authors.44 However, even
relatively weak dissertations can give readers something to interact with and can
help direct them to other useful sources that they might not discover otherwise.
Every researcher knows something that we do not and that we can learn from.
Understanding primary sources in their original contexts reiterates the
need to interact predominantly with secondary sources that have a scholarly
reputation. Non-scholarly history often addresses different questions that will
not suit the needs of academic historical research. For instance, historical
material published by Banner of Truth can have limited value in historical
research, even though they are often full of good and edifying information.
They are valuable in their practical aim and for their intended audience, but
they often seek to identify heroes instead of putting people in their historical
contexts. They can also blur the distinction between understanding historical
ideas in historical contexts and applying these ideas for contemporary uses.
Chad Van Dixhoorn’s useful Banner of Truth volume on the Westminster
Confession is a good example of this.45 The author is an undisputed expert
in his field, yet he did not write this book for an academic audience. Though
it purports to present the theology of the Westminster divines on their own
terms, there is very little footnote evidence to back up historical assumptions.
This makes it difficult to distinguish the author’s historically informed
statements from his contemporary interaction with Scripture and his aim
to reach a contemporary audience with Reformed theology. His book is an
excellent introduction to Reformed theology for church members at large, but
its value for historical research is limited by design. Readers should be aware of
the purpose of the book or article that they are reading and they should keep
the intended audience in view. Look first at Oxford, Brill, V&R, and similar
44
Henry M. Knapp, “Understanding the Mind of God: John Owen and Seventeenth-Century
Exegetical Methodology,” Unpublished PhD thesis, Calvin Theological Seminary, 2002.
45
Chad B. Van Dixhoorn, Confessing the Faith: A Reader’s Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith
(Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2014).
academic publishers and use published material aimed at a popular audience

sparingly for academic research.46
Another important reminder is that while students should use secondary
sources to gather ideas and to raise questions, they should let primary sources
alone drive their analyses and conclusions. Secondary literature alerts a reader’s
attention to what others have said about historical ideas, but they cannot
replace studying these historical ideas first hand. As a subsequent chapter will
illustrate, for decades scholars assumed that Reformed scholasticism marked
a departure from Calvin’s pristine Reformed theology. Most authors have now
abandoned this thesis due to heavy emphasis on reading primary sources and
contextualizing historical ideas more adequately. Secondary sources either
illustrate the present state of the question on a given topic, lacunae in the issues
treated, or even misrepresentations of historical ideas. Using them is vital, but
it is not enough to do sound research.
It is important at this juncture to add some comments on the need to read
secondary sources that are analogous in content to your subject of interest.
This author cannot overstress the importance of this point. If you write, for
example, on Goodwin’s trinitarian piety (on which, to this author’s knowledge,
no scholarly works exist to date), then read works on Owen and Baxter’s
trinitarian theology, as well as others that you can find on the development
of Reformed trinitarian theology to fill in the gaps in your understanding. Be
imaginative. Authors writing on similar topics may help you learn where to
look for what you need or illustrate why your research fills a gap in historical
theological studies. Biographies of Oliver Cromwell47 and William Laud,48
for example, helped the present author build Owen’s context more broadly.
Timothy Wengert’s Law and Gospel, which treats the Lutheran antinomian
context, was also indispensable for my research on Owen’s treatment of the law
and the gospel, even though Wengert did not have a British context in view.49
46
I once resented this counsel, but I have come to see its value. Finding heroes in church history can
be helpful, yet it is equally if not more helpful to understand historical figures and ideas in their own
contexts first before evaluating whether their actions or ideas are true or useful.
47
Patrick Little, Oliver Cromwell: New Perspectives (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009).
48
49
Timothy J. Wengert, Law and Gospel: Philip Melanchthon’s Debate with John Agricola of Eisleben Over
Poenitentia (Carlisle, Cumbria, and Grand Rapids, MI: Paternoster; Baker Books, 1997); Ryan M.
McGraw, John Owen: Trajectories in Reformed Orthodox Theology (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017).
The last point of advice in using secondary sources is don’t try to read
everything from cover to cover. Learn how to analyze a whole book before
delving into its particular parts. Mortimer J. Adler’s classic How to Read a Book
gives good directions related to this point.50 Seek to identify which books you
need to read entirely and which sections of other books might prove fruitful
to your research. The introductions and conclusions of well-written and
well-planned books are the best tools to determine the distinctive aims and
contributions of an author or a group of contributors. Stay focused on your
thesis in your research. Doing so will largely determine what you read, why
you read it, how much of it you need to digest, and what you opt to skip over.
How to obtain secondary sources
Most of the secondary literature recommended in this chapter is very expensive

to purchase. Many of the books range from $100 and upwards in price. Some
sets, such as Van Dixhoorn’s five volumes on the Westminster Assembly, cost
around $1000. With respect to some publishers, a portion of such high prices
reflects extensive behind the scenes peer-review and editorial processes that
authors do not receive from non-academic publishers. This process makes
authors work harder and it makes their final products much better and more
useful to others. However, obtaining such valuable secondary sources easily
becomes cost prohibitive to many students, especially to those laboring in
Christian ministry concurrently with their studies. Below are some creative
suggestions for obtaining expensive secondary literature, especially with
regard to academic books.
First, students should learn to use the inter-library loan services of a
local lending library. Ordinarily this service is free. At most, it has cost the
present author a dollar to ship a book to the local public library. It is rare for
a university or local lending library not to be able to obtain very expensive
scholarly secondary sources. A librarian can also assist students in obtaining
articles that may help them in their studies. This point does not apply only
to students with access to university libraries. This author, for example, was
50
Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Lincoln Van Doren, How to Read a Book (New York: A. Touchstone
Book, 2014).
able to gain access to large numbers of academic books and articles through
the inter-library loan services of the public library of the small town in South
Carolina in which he lived for a time.51
Second, only purchase expensive academic books if you plan to return to
them frequently. For the present author, the number of books that meet this
criterion is relatively small. Ordinarily, it is sufficient to take good notes on a
volume obtained through inter-library loan for present and future uses as long
as the reader knows what to look for and what to write down. Few can afford
the expense of adding a steady stream of academic books to their personal
libraries.
Third, if you are a minister, then work with your local church to establish
an adequate professional expense account that you can use to purchase books,
computers, or other resources needed to further your research. In the United
States, this is a tax-free professional account designed to facilitate your work.
It can be used to purchase books, computers, tuition, and other essential
items, as well as for travel related to your work. Applying such an account to
academic studies in historical theology assumes that you have an agreement to
pursue further studies with the leadership of your local congregation. It also
assumes that even though you are pursuing an academic project, your aims are
ultimately to use what you learn for the benefit of the church.
Fourth, use online article databases, such as ATLA or JSTOR. A theological
seminary and seminary librarian should be able to help students on this front.
This applies to university students as well. Ordinarily, journal access databases
are available, both to current students and to alumni in many institutions.
Local public libraries can also obtain expensive articles and have the capacity
either to print copies of them for students or to email pdf copies of needed
articles to them.
Fifth, some students will be able to request review copies of important new
books, if they can guarantee published reviews of the books that they request
from publishers. The present author has done this through establishing a
reputation as a reviewer with multiple scholarly journals as well as by serving
as an assistant review editor to one journal. This often enables this author to
51
For students in California, they can use the Link + system, which gives them access to California
University libraries as well as to some private universities. Broader inter-library loan services are
available for an extra charge.
make prior arrangements with journal editors to publish reviews of books that
he is interested in acquiring. Publishing reviews of books enables students to
build their personal libraries without being weighed down with excessive costs
of buying academic books. Writing reviews also promotes digesting material,
remembering it better, and finding uses for it in relation to one’s research. Those
attempting to pursue this route need to start publishing reviews with several
journals to build their reputations as reviewers and to secure predictable
avenues through which to publish reviews. Publishers are generally generous
with granting requests for review copies, as long as you can publish them with
reputable journals and not in blog posts.
Conclusion
Using secondary literature related to Reformed scholasticism enhances and

completes one’s interaction with primary source literature. It is important to
learn how to identify which secondary sources will likely be most relevant
to historical research, to know how to use those sources responsibly, and to
pursue various avenues of obtaining them. Together, primary and secondary
sources provide students of Reformed scholasticism with the tools that they
need to delve into materials related to classic Reformed theology. However,
to complete this sketch of historical methodology, it is necessary to outline
proper historical methodology itself and to show what this method looks like
in practice through the process of outlining and writing a project related to
Reformed scholasticism. The following chapter seeks to plant seed thoughts
that will help students move in the right direction in this regard.
66
4
Research Methodology: Historiography and

Writing Historical Theology
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the author’s undergraduate

degree in History, he took courses in historical thinking (historiography) and
in historical writing. This paved the way for a senior research seminar in which
students applied the skills obtained from these other courses to a large-scale
research and writing project. Taken together, these courses reflect the fact that,
as a discipline, history has its own theory and practice and that historians need
to learn the tools of their trade.
Yet it is often the case today that many students pursuing higher degrees in
historical theology have not obtained these skills at the undergraduate level.
Students without these foundational studies may need to develop a basic theory
and practice of historical writing through studying some of the key texts listed
in the bibliography of the present book. This chapter and the one that follows
apply principles related to historiography and to historical writing, with
special application to research related to Reformed scholasticism. The basic
point of the present chapter is that to study Reformed scholasticism, students
must develop a sound historiography to begin writing historical theology well.
Preliminary reflections on historiography
Historiography overlaps with that branch of philosophy known as epistemology.

In recent decades, the growth of postmodern philosophy and its theories related
to the deconstruction of language has threatened the legitimacy of history as
an academic discipline. While such philosophical theories are beyond the
scope of the present book, readers should be aware that this has created a crisis
in the right of history to exist as a discipline. Some historians have responded

to these philosophical trends by seeking to dismantle postmodern language
theory.1 Others have reframed the historian’s task by appropriating elements
of postmodern philosophy, while retaining a realistic yet optimistic view of
explaining the thought of historical figures in historical contexts.2 Historians
generally agree, however, that to justify the existence of history as an academic
discipline, and the history of ideas in particular, it is necessary to develop a
philosophical foundation that supports the possibility of doing historical
research that retains some level of objectivity. While this chapter and the one
that follows stress the practice of history primarily, these observations lead
to two preliminary ideas regarding the theoretical grounds of historiography.
Theological reflections
The first point is that, in this author’s view, only a biblical epistemology can
support the possibility of historical research.3 The point here is merely to state
some of the key principles that this assertion entails, with their implications,
rather than arguing at length in favor of them.
The first component of this epistemology is the Creator/creature distinction.
The triune God revealed in Scripture is transcendent and in a category entirely
separate from creation. In light with Reformed scholastic thought, as we will
see below, this means that God has all knowledge in himself, through himself,
and with reference to himself. This is what Reformed scholastics called
archetypal theology.4 This means that the triune God is the archetypal pattern
and foundation of all knowledge. All creaturely knowledge must be derived
1
For example, Joyce Oldham Appleby, Lynn Hunt, and Margaret C. Jacob, Telling the Truth about
History (New York: Norton, 1994).
2
Quentin Skinner, Visions of Politics: Volume 1: Regarding Method (Cambridge and New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2002); Alister Chapman, John Coffey, and Brad S. Gregory, eds., Seeing
Things Their Way: Intellectual History and the Return of Religion (Notre Dame, IN: University of
Notre Dame Press, 2009).
3
For a full defense of Christian epistemology that lays the groundwork for history as well as
other fields of study, see Cornelius Van Til, A Christian Theology of Knowledge (Phillipsburg, NJ:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publications, 1969).
4
Franciscus Junius, A Treatise on True Theology: With the Life of Franciscus Junius, trans. David C.
Noe (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014), 107–20; Willem J. van Asselt, “The
Fundamental Meaning of Theology: Archetypal and Ectypal Theology in Seventeenth-Century
Reformed Thought,” Westminster Theological Journal 64, no. 2 (2002): 319–35.
Historiography and Writing Historical Theology 69
analogously from God’s self-knowledge, while creaturely knowledge can never

be qualitatively the same as God’s self-knowledge.
The second component of a Christian epistemology is the Creator/creature
relationship. This means that God reveals himself to creatures made in his
image. The facts of mathematics, for example, all what they are because God
has created them to be what they are. Since human beings are made in God’s
image, they have the capacity for ectypal knowledge based analogously on
God’s archetypal knowledge. Under this theory, scientific investigation is
possible only because God has revealed himself and all things in the world in
relation to him to creatures who possess the receptive capacity to understand
such things. With the introduction of sin into the world, this means that while
human beings still think and act as creatures made in God’s image, they do not
acknowledge him as God and as their God without the regenerating power of
the Spirit at work in their hearts, reconciling them to God in Christ. This means
that because God is who he is and because human beings are who they are,
scientific investigation (which includes historical reasoning from evidence) is
possible, even when scientists do not acknowledge that only such theological
principles undergird their discipline by providing a theory that makes natural
laws and facts existent and knowable. The distinction between the Creator
and his creation coupled with the epistemological relationship between them
makes history possible as a discipline even as history partakes of the character
of other sciences.
Practical reflections
However, having a biblical epistemology is not the same thing as using sound
historical methodology. One can be a sound Christian theologian and a poor
historian. Conversely, one can be a sound historian who is not a Christian at
all. In this author’s opinion, the first person possesses right beliefs, but the
wrong practices; the latter person pursues right practices without a sound
philosophical grounding for those practices.
Historians, Christians or otherwise, should beware of confusing these
two issues. To illustrate, the author once received an F in an undergraduate
research course on the English Reformation. He was tasked to analyze Nicholas
Ridley’s (1500–55) thought and approach to the Reformation. The problem
was that while he sought to contextualize Ridley’s thought in light of primary

source evidence, the professor wanted him to impose modern psychoanalysis
on Ridley and Latimer to explain which particular psychological disorders
led them to go to the stake singing hymns. It could be tempting to see this
as an example of persecuting a Christian student over a religious difference.
However, the problem was that the student did not believe that the professor
was requiring him to use a sound historical method. He complained to
another professor, who was a Christian and a professor of medieval history.
This professor appealed to the academic dean, who was not a Christian. Both
the Christian professor and the non-Christian dean sided with the student
in this case. Yet they did so on methodological grounds rather than on the
grounds of a Christian epistemology, which they did not hold in common.
Both professors agreed over how history should be done in spite of their basic
philosophical differences.
Students should also distinguish between a theological foundation
for historiography and purported theological interpretations of history.
Appealing to a Christian epistemology as the theoretical ground of history
does not mean that students should import religious evaluations into every
historical investigation.5 To illustrate, in this author’s undergraduate degree,
he initially argued with his historiography professor regarding the importance
of divine providence in historical interpretation. Without criticizing the
student’s personal convictions, the professor responded that appealing to
divine providence was not particularly helpful for historical interpretations of
events. His point was that it is one thing to believe that the triune God directs
all things to his own glory and that he uses historical events to bring people
to repentance from sin, etc. It is another thing to apply overly specific cause
and effect relationships between historical events and God’s supposed intent
behind these events. Historians can attempt to trace the development of human
ideas and actions in historical contexts. Doing so involves framing probable
arguments from historical evidence. Tracing the thought of the divine mind
in history is another matter entirely that goes beyond the historical evidence.
While it is true, for example, to say that God providentially directed Augustine
5
See Trueman’s cautions in this regard in Histories and Fallacies: Problems Faced in the Writing of
History (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 166–7.
of Hippo to read the Bible through children singing, “Tolle lege,” this does
not furnish a historian with a good explanation of how Augustine developed
his thought. Answering such questions would require background studies
related to his education, his philosophical inclinations and shifts, his foray
into Manichaeism, and many other areas. While a Christian epistemology
tries to lay a theoretical foundation for history as a discipline, sound
historical principles often exist in spite of the absence of such self-conscious
epistemological principles.6
Toward “seeing things their way”
Many students misunderstand what it means to detail their approach

to historical method. This author once reviewed a doctoral dissertation
in which under “method” the student described his approach as
“chronological.” While this was an accurate description of the ordering of
his chapters, it missed the mark in answering the question of methodology.
Historical methodology, or historiography, describes for readers how an
author approaches his or her evidence and what methods he or she uses to
interpret that evidence.
Cambridge historian Quentin Skinner is known for the using the phrase,
“seeing things their way,” to describe his historical method.7 While Skinner
recognized that a contemporary historian can never fully understand
the thoughts of historical figures in historical contexts, the goal of his
historiographical method is to come as close as possible to doing so by learning
to ask historical questions rather than contemporary ones. This largely
represents the historical method advocated here. In explaining this method of
historical investigation, Brad Gregory writes, “I take ‘seeing things their way’
to be more or less synonymous with understanding religious people on their
own terms, or with reconstructing the ways in which they viewed themselves
6
The author would add here that this is possible because even historians who do not share a Christian
epistemology are made in God’s image, live in God’s world, and interpret facts that God has made.
7
Following and developing Skinner’s methodology, see Alister Chapman, John Coffey, and Brad S.
Gregory, eds., Seeing Things Their Way: Intellectual History and the Return of Religion (Notre Dame,
IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2009).
and their world, or with depicting them in the manner in which they would
have recognized themselves.”8
Philip Benedict provides a useful illustration of this method. He states
that readers have a right to know the religious orientation of a historian. He
described himself as “a total outsider, an agnostic, nonpracticing Jew raised in
a secular household.”9 However, he exemplifies what histories, such as Skinner
meant by, “seeing things their way.” He wrote,
While I thus lack the easy familiarity with enduring elements of the tradition
that a church upbringing offers and worry about my formal lack of instruction
in theology and the Bible. I can only hope I have been able to overcome some
of these handicaps through that most basic of mental processes cultivated by
historians; the effort to think one’s way sympathetically into a distant land
and, to a degree, alien worldview.10
By way of contrast, the present author is a conservative Reformed minister/

professor in a conservative Presbyterian denomination. An author like
Benedict has the advantage of not being as tempted to read his own
denominational background, commitments, and present theological debates
into historical theology. The advantages that an author like myself has include
formal training in the Reformed confessional tradition, numerous courses in
Greek and Hebrew, extensive knowledge of the Bible, and a general familiarity
with the trajectories of Reformed thought from the outset. Both kinds of
authors must grapple with the tendency to import their philosophical and
theological commitments into historical contexts and ideas. However, all
historians must develop the skill of reading historical figures sympathetically,
treating their ideas as entering into distant lands and widely varying cultural
contexts. Though Benedict is not a committed Reformed Christian, he has
accomplished his task well and Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed remains one
of the standard introductions to the development and spread of Reformed
churches and Reformed ideas.
8
Alister Chapman, John Coffey, and Brad S. Gregory, eds., Seeing Things Their Way: Intellectual
History and the Return of Religion (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2009), 25.
9
Philip Benedict, Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism (New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 2002), xxv.
10
Benedict, Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed, xxv–xxvi.
Rather than reconstructing this historical method from the ground up,
the remainder of this chapter gives students directions toward reconstructing
the historical world of Reformed scholasticism insofar as it relates to their
research topics. The author’s comments under this heading make explicit
what is implicit already in the chapter on primary sources. The material below
develops many theoretical and practical observations about historiography by
interacting with the article by Gregory cited here.
Seek to listen to rather than speak to the past
As noted in Chapter 2, while a combination of contemporary relevance and

personal interests should lead students to their topics, they must be more
ready to hear than they are to speak. You may find that the primary value of
your historical research does not lie in finding your subject to be for or against
your “side” in a current debate. The purpose of such research is to see things
from another perspective, in this case a historical one. Students may find that
they must either proceed with extreme caution or abandon a chosen topic
because current questions on a subject differ so widely from historical ones.
The author’s work on Owen’s treatment of covenant threats in relation to
gospel preaching illustrates this counsel.11 Reflecting the advice he is giving in
the present book, he chose to research this topic, in part, because of current
confusion in Reformed theology over law-gospel categories. However, the
author notes that Owen does not always meet the expectations of contemporary
readers in relation to these issues. While, on the one hand, Owen clearly rejected
Lutheran dichotomies to the effect that the law commands and threatens while
the gospel promises and blesses, on the other hand, his construction of the
covenant of works in relation to the Mosaic covenant does not fit seamlessly
into either side of modern debates over such issues. He held the minority
position that the Mosaic covenant was neither the covenant of works nor the
covenant of grace but a “superadded covenant.” In addition, he held that the
covenant of works was present under the Mosaic covenant, but that it was so
11
Ryan M. McGraw, “The Threats of the Gospel: John Owen on What the Law/Gospel Distinction Is
Not,” Calvin Theological Journal 51 (2016): 79–111. All statements in this paragraph are summarized
from the conclusions found in this article.
declaratively rather than covenantally. This meant that while the purpose of the
Mosaic covenant was not to “republish” the covenant of works, the covenant
of works was still there as an essential component of the first use of the law in
convicting sinners and driving them to Christ. Owen’s views of the law and the
gospel did not coincide entirely with Lutheran theology while his views of the
Mosaic covenant represented a minority position among Reformed authors.
Issues such as these, in which historical positions bear verbal similarities to
modern ones at points, make “seeing things their way” particularly challenging.
All of this illustrates Trueman’s point that “historians have a hard task in front
of them.”12 They must immerse themselves in their chosen period of study
and revise their questions and conclusions as historical contexts unfold. They
must allow historical questions and concerns to supplant contemporary ones.
Historians must also consider the “ideological freight” behind their questions
and how they influence their investigation of various aspects of Reformed
scholastic thought.13 This should result in a cyclical process of self-correction
and reevaluation in the process of research and writing.
Delay value judgments related to historical subjects
While no one can be entirely unbiased, it is more important studiously to avoid

mixing one’s evaluations of a subject with the subject itself.14 This principle is
similar to the biblical proverb that warns readers against answering a matter
before hearing it (Prov. 18:13). Students must learn to treat historical figures
with dignity and respect by seeking to understand and to depict them in their
contexts, just as one should do in dealing with living people. It is wiser to
understand what someone is saying and why he or she is saying it, dead or
living, before evaluating their ideas.
Avoid both the extremes of hagiography and of historical slander.
Hagiography transforms historical subjects into seemingly flawless saints.
Slander often results from choosing the least charitable possible interpretations
of historical actions and ideas when the evidence does not require such
12
Trueman, Histories and Fallacies, 140.
13
14
Chapman, Coffey, and Gregory, Seeing Things Their Way, 33.
interpretations. To use a scholastic distinction, the former is a sin of in excessu

while the latter is a sin in defectu. Students should write neither assuming the
truth or falsehood of the religious ideas of their subjects (this process can come
later). They must analyze Reformed scholastic thought apart from personal
value judgments before such value judgments can be of any meaningful use.
Do not confuse objectivity with neutrality
Trueman makes the simple, yet profound, observation that objectivity and
neutrality are not the same thing.15 Objectivity relates to using proper methods
for evaluating evidence from a historical perspective. Neutrality entails a claim
that an author is able to set aside his or her own biases and commitments as
he or she writes. It is possible to be approach objectivity while it is neither
possible nor desirable to achieve neutrality. Trueman added wisely, “The claim
to neutrality is merely a specious means of privileging my point of view—
disguised as the simple truth, so to speak—over that of everybody else.”16 In
other words, when someone attempts to pass off their own arguments from
evidence as neutral rather than as objective, then they run the risk of blurring
the distinction between personal opinions and conclusions based on solid
evidence and sound argumentation. Trueman concludes rightly, “Objectivity
is much more modest, and thus a much more attainable category than
neutrality.”17
It may be advisable, at times, for a historian to state his or her biases in
introductory material. In general, however, it is best to present historical
arguments from historical evidence that serve as the proper object of study and
to press tentative historical conclusions based on such evidence alone. Gregory
hit the proverbial nail on the head when he wrote, “I have never been impressed
by the general claim that all interpretations must be flawed because all scholars
are biased. This seems facile and the product of intellectual laziness. This issue
is rather how precisely is this particular interpretation adequate, if at all?”18 The
15
16
17
18
Chapman, Coffey, and Gregory, Seeing Things Their Way, 39. Emphasis original.
point is that historians should learn to ask questions and to draw conclusions
derived from the documentary evidences to which they are appealing.19
Avoid anachronisms
Avoiding anachronisms means learning to use the vocabulary contemporary

to your subject as much as possible.20 Using vocabulary freighted with
meaning from contemporary theological discussions, for example, runs the
risk of importing modern ideas into Reformed scholastic theology. As the
common proverb goes, those who gaze into the well of history are always at
risk of seeing their own reflections.
Sometimes anachronisms appear to be relatively harmless. For example,
seventeenth-century British authors referred to public worship and not to
corporate worship. While this change appears to make little difference in
meaning, it is still better to retain historic terms to avoid the risk of distorting
ideas. Other examples have greater moment. For example, older Reformed
authors frequently treated the relationship between the covenant of works and
the covenant with Moses. They did not refer to “republication” or to a “works
principle,” which terms pervade modern theology in light of ancient Near
Eastern studies.
Even accurate historical studies by sound historians incorporate
anachronisms into their work. It is difficult for any of us to get away from
them fully. For example, Stephen Casselli’s otherwise fine work on Anthony
Burgess (1600–63) uses terms such as “garden-temple,” “covenant overlord,”
“Adamic administration,” and “the Christ event.”21 The first two terms come
via modern biblical theology. “Adamic administration” language comes from
John Murray. The last term, “the Christ event,” likely comes in one way or
another from Karl Barth. All of these terms represent twentieth-century
theological developments. Using anachronistic terms can simultaneously
blur the distinctions between historical ideas and contemporary ones and it
19
20
Trueman, Histories and Fallacies, chapter 3.
21
Stephen J. Casselli, Divine Rule Maintained: Anthony Burgess, Covenant Theology, and the Place of the
Law in Reformed Scholasticism (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2016), 63, 74, and
135, respectively.
borders violating the principle of delaying value judgments in doing historical

research.
This does not mean that it is always a mistake to use modern concepts to
explain historical ideas, however. As Bac and Pleizier add, “There is nothing
wrong with the use of modern logical instruments to analyze historical texts.
It is perfectly legitimate to study history using modern methods and strategies
developed after the historical revolution, as long as the historian is aware of
the methodological danger of anachronisms.”22 If a historian chooses to use
anachronistic terms, then he or she must be able to justify such uses as well as
demonstrate that they are aware of the anachronism.23 Referring to Germany
or France in the sixteenth century is anachronistic, for example, but the
anachronism is arguably both understandable and excusable in such cases. In
general, however, anachronistic terms run the risk of distorting rather than
explaining historical ideas and students of Reformed scholasticism should
learn to avoid them as a general rule.
Consider the role of the Bible in Reformed scholastic theology
Do not forget that, for Reformed scholastic authors, the Bible was part of their
historical context.24 This means that the Bible as understood in the various
contexts of Reformed scholasticism was a genuine cause of theological ideas.
For anyone treating the Bible as possessing divine authority, historical context
partly shapes how they read their Bibles. However, biblical expressions and
ideas contributed to how historic figures understood themselves in their
historic contexts.
This principle often explains the very language that Reformed scholastic
authors used in developing technical theological terms and categories. Two
examples will suffice. In his Snytagma, Amandus Polanus concluded most of
22
23
Muller does this, for example, in his use of the terms synchronic and diachronic contingency.
Richard A. Muller, Divine Will and Human Choice: Freedom, Contingency, and Necessity in Early
Modern Reformed Thought (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2017), 41. He notes here that Paul
Helm contests the use of these terms in this connection.
24
See, Chapman, Coffey, and Gregory, Seeing Things Their Way, 31.
chapters by developing the “uses” of the doctrines treated under each heading.
He divided these concluding sections consistently into four categories
introduced by four Greek terms. These were didaskalia, epanordzesis, padeia,
and epiclesis.25 He lifted these terms from Paul’s fourfold description of the uses
of Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16. This was a common practice among Reformed
orthodox authors. William Perkins used the rubric provided in this text as a
pattern for preachers in his famous manual on the subject, dividing the four
terms into noetica (mental) and practica (practical) application.26 The second
example appears in how Reformed authors treated the distinction between
God’s will with reference to his decrees and his will as revealed as a rule for his
creatures to follow. Francis Turretin illustrates this point well. He noted that
there were three common ways of describing this distinction. The first was
God’s decretive and his preceptive will, the second was his will of good purpose
(eudokias) and his will of good pleasure (euarestas), and the last was his will of
good pleasure (voluntas beneplaciti) and his significant will (voluntas signi).27
The second set of terms (eudokias and euarestias) were lifted from their uses in
the New Testament in passages, such as Ephesians.28 These examples show how
biblical vocabulary grew into technical terms that became standard features of
Reformed scholastic theology.
Protestants professing to submit to the authority of Scripture with implicit
faith have always treated the Bible as a contemporary book speaking to
them with God’s authority at the time. While it may be convenient for some
to dismiss such a view of the Bible as the invention of twentieth-century
25
For example, see his conclusion to his chapter on de Beatitudine Dei in, Amandus Polanus,
Syntagma Theologiae Christianae Ab Amando Polano a Polansdorf: Juxta Leges Ordinis Methodici
Conformatum, Atque in Libros Decem Digestum Jamque Demum in Unum Volumen Compactum,
Novissime Emendatum (Hanoviae, 1610), 997–8.
26
William Perkins, Prophetica; sive, De Sacra et Unica Ratione Concionandi, Tractatus (Cambridge,
1602), 116–19.
27
Wollebius represents the practice of many seventeenth-century compendia by favoring the distinction
between volntas signi and voluntas beneplaciti. Bucanus represents the core of the Reformed concern
by denying that there are two wills in God, but rather that we struggle with how to distinguish our
understanding of the divine will. Johannes Wollebius, Compendium Theologiæ Christianæ, Editio
Ultima Prioribus Multo Correctior, 9th ed. (Cantabrigiæ, 1655), 25; William Bucanus, Institutiones
Theolgicae, Seu, Locorum Communium Christanae Religionis (Geneva, 1648), 146.
28
Giger, 3 vols. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992), 1:221–2; 3.15.8–12. In Ephesians 1:5 and 9,
Eudokias describes God’s good purpose in relation to election and predestination. In 4:10, Euarestas
describes his good pleasure as believers should know and do it.
“fundamentalism,” the primary sources of Reformed scholasticism demand

otherwise. This means that students of Reformed scholasticism need to
develop an extensive knowledge of the language and content of the Bible itself
to understand the extent to which the Bible served as part of the historical
context of Reformed theology. This author has often found, for example, that
when reading Reformed scholastic authors, they often end up citing many of
the same passages of Scripture that he had in mind while reading them.
Taking the Bible seriously as partly shaping historical ideas applies
preeminently to becoming familiar with the Bible in Latin, and in Greek and
Hebrew, if possible, since these were the languages from which Reformed
scholastic authors developed their interpretations of Scripture and often their
technical theological vocabulary.
Be charitable toward historical subjects
Exercise charity toward your subject without naively taking him or her at his
word at all times. Self-perception is often faulty. This is true of all people in
every era of history, including our own. Scholars must exercise both charity
and discernment in evaluating the ideas and motives of historical figures.
They must exercise charity in listening to authors make their cases on their
own terms, for instance, in claiming that they have been wronged or sidelined.
They must also recognize, however, that there are two sides to every story.
Realizing this fact requires critical discernment. The testimony of friends and
enemies are important to consider in addition to an author’s own assertions.
Students must avoid both extremes of simply taking a subject at his or her word
uncritically, on the one hand, and of assuming that the caricatures of their
enemies are wholly accurate, on the other. To provide a concrete example, one
solid historian raises the suggestion of imputing a haughty look to a portrait
of Owen as a possible indication of his character.29 Yet other interpretations of
this portrait are equally plausible. Owen’s expression may simply indicate that
he sat too long for the portrait, that the artist lacked skill, or that the historian
is reading too much into seventeenth-century facial expressions. If other
29
Crawford Gribben, John Owen and English Puritanism: Experiences of Defeat, Oxford Studies in
Historical Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 233.
interpretations are equally plausible, then it is probably best not to speculate

one way or the other.
Bac and Pleizier warn historians rightly not to take their subjects words
at face value.30 However, this should not result in failing to take a subject’s
words seriously or to imputing motives to a subject where the evidence does
not necessarily lead in this direction. In this vein, The Myth of the Reformation
article on Calvin being subversive to the French civil authority reads more
like a brief from a prosecuting attorney than a sound piece of historical
theology.31 Certainly the author’s assertion that Calvin was “the veritable
Osama bin Laden of Sixteenth-century France,”32 transgresses the bounds of
responsible historical investigation in a plethora of ways, not the least of which
is anachronism. Arguing that Calvin’s religious ideas were implicitly in conflict
with the governing authorities is not the same thing as concluding that Calvin
intended his religious ideas to subvert civil government.
Analyzing ideas in historical contexts is a safer procedure than imputing
motives, which are beyond the bounds of historical research, to historical
figures. Unless a subject explains his or her motives, you should beware of
imputing motives to them through conjecture. In this regard, students must
beware of imposing modern psychological interpretations on historical
subjects as well.33
Analyze rather than regurgitate historical data
Do not regurgitate facts only, but provide analyses of evidence. These means
that historians should, as a rule, minimize block citations from historical
documents. Gathering material from primary sources is only the first step in
good historical method and writing. However, the historian’s job is to make
sense of the material that he or she gathers. Sometimes key block citations
or including large portions of text from primary sources can serve to make
30
Bac and Pleizier, “Teaching Reformed Scholasticism,” 41.
31
Peter Opitz, ed., The Myth of the Reformation, vol. 9, Refo500 Academic Studies (Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 160–72.
32
Myth of the Reformation, 161.
33
Chapman, Coffey, and Gregory, Seeing Things Their Way, 34.
several important points of historical analysis. Yet if a historian only provides

block citations, then his or her work can read like an abridgement of historical
material instead of actual historical research. Block quotations often appear
to short-circuit or bypass the task assigned to the historian. It is often best to
include such lengthy citations in footnotes for ease of reference than it is to
push them into the body of the text. In either case, the goal of writing history
is analyzing material and making sense of it rather than merely regurgitating
notes on primary sources.
It is important to add here that historical analysis does not entail evaluating
historical ideas through the lens of the historian’s present beliefs. Instead, it
aims to show development, continuities, discontinuities, and trajectories
within a subject’s historical context, tradition, social, political, and intellectual
framework. For instance, arguing that John Cameron’s scheme of three
covenants (works, grace, and Moses) was a minority among seventeenth-
century authors is not the same thing as asserting that it is true, false, better, or
worse than other historical options available in the past or the present.34
This does not mean that a historian cannot provide theological evaluations
in their proper place. It merely recognizes that he or she must state clearly
and openly when they are engaging in historical versus systematic theology.
Van Vlastuin’s Be Renewed is an outstanding example of how to accomplish
both tasks in the same book without blurring lines between disciplines.35 This
author provides a model for separating and relating historical and systematic
theology in an exemplary manner. This model will become particularly
relevant to the concluding chapter of the present book.
Conclusion
In C. S. Lewis’ book, Till We Have Faces, the narrator recounts the difficulty of
telling even her own history. She cautioned,
34
Mark Jones, “The ‘Old’ Covenant,” in Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and
Debates within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism, ed. Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones,
35
Willem van Vlastuin, Be Renewed: A Theology of Personal Renewal, vol. 26, Reformed Historical
Let no one lightly set about such a work. Memory once waked, will play the
tyrant. I found I must set down (for I was speaking before judges and must
not lie) passions and thoughts of my own which I had clean forgotten. The
past which I wrote down was not the past that I thought I had (all these
years) been remembering. I did not, even when I had finished the book, see
clearly many things that I see now. The change which the writing wrought in
me (and of which I did not write) was only a beginning; only to prepare me
for the gods’ surgery. They used my own pen to probe my wound.36
Through writing, she came to know herself and her history better. This
illustrates well some of the challenges that historians face, both with regard to
themselves and to those about whom they write. To borrow Lewis’ imagery, we,
and those about whom we write, often do not know our own faces adequately.
The best that we can do is to seek to know ourselves and our biases better and
try to see things their way as we study and write history.
This brief sketch of historiography as applied to studying Reformed
scholasticism has been more thematic in nature than systematic in presentation.
This author recommends that students requiring a fuller treatment of this topic
read books like Telling the Truth about History or Seeing Things Their Way as a
starting point. The primary issues related to historiography include developing
a philosophy/theology of history and, especially, exploring proper historical
method. Students should also state clearly their approach to historical method
somewhere early in their work so that readers know what to expect regarding
the character of their work. Since the present book stresses why and how to
study Reformed scholasticism, the author has primarily shifted the reader’s
attention to methodological rather than philosophical/theological ones. These
observations set the stage for engaging in serious writing in this field, to which
the next chapter now turns.
36
C. S. Lewis, Till We Have Faces: A Myth Retold (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1956). This quotation comes
from the second paragraph of the first chapter of part two of this work. The electronic version of the
book is unpaginated.
5
Writing Historical Theology
Learning comes best ultimately through doing. This chapter both completes
and compliments the previous one by applying the principles learned to
outlining and writing a research project. Its primary objective is to show
students of Reformed scholasticism that to study topics related to this field
well, it is necessary to learn how to write sound history. Doing so results in
a cyclical process of outlining a research project, writing, keeping track of
one’s studies, and then continually revising the outline, chapters, and even
sometimes the thesis itself through the process of writing.
Outlining a project
Outlining a project provides a writer with a preliminary sense of direction.

Submitting an outline to a supervisor in a degree program also enables the
supervisor to provide initial and substantial feedback, resulting in fruitful
dialogue between teacher and student. This fosters the learning process for
students. Outlining a project is the first step in writing about a topic drawn
from Reformed scholasticism. As research and writing develop a life of their
own, the outline, and even a preliminary thesis, will likely change significantly
before arriving at a final product. Producing a useful outline should involve at
least four steps.
Narrowing the thesis
Transitioning from a topic to a thesis is a gradual process that can only come
through extensive reading and note taking, both in primary and secondary
literature. However, it is important as one studies sources related to Reformed
scholasticism to develop a tentative thesis that is demonstrable from the

evidence, broad enough to be flexible, and narrow enough to keep the student
on track.
For example, if your thesis were that Gisbertus Voetius was a pivotal figure
in high orthodox theology, then you would need to write volumes on the
influence of every facet of his theology in relation to Dutch, continental, and
British authors. This thesis needs narrowing. For instance, you may need to
limit your research to Voetius’s church polity. Yet this is still a broad topic
without a specific target. This may lead you to narrow your focus further to
the relationship between Voetius’s church polity and debates over church
power at the Westminster Assembly. Hunter Powell laid seed thoughts for
further research on this point in his Crisis of British Protestantism.1 Turning
this narrow topic into a specific thesis statement would involve making
a preliminary statement about Voetius’s relationship to the Westminster
Assembly that you intend to prove. It could be something like, “Voetius
had an indirect influence on debates over church polity at the Westminster
Assembly.” While a statement like this one is not set in stone in the initial
stages of research, it will effectively limit the questions that you ask an answer,
which will enable you to manage an otherwise daunting amount of historical
evidence. Making a preliminary statement such as this one requires a level
of familiarity with relevant primary source literature and with what others
have done in relation to your topic in secondary literature. Further research
always means that your thesis is subject to change as well as you follow the
trail of evidence. Keeping the thesis somewhat general gives you the flexibility
to adapt to what you find in your research. Yet narrowing a thesis statement
sufficiently ensures that students will be able both to begin their work and to
bring it to completion.
Developing chapters in light of a thesis
The chapters of a large-scale research project related to Reformed scholastic

theology must actually aim to prove its thesis statement. For example, in this
1
2015), 104, 122, 141.
Writing Historical Theology 85
author’s first academic book on John Owen, he wrote on Owen’s life as it

pertained to questions surrounding public worship and the Trinity—no more
and no less.2 The reason for this limitation in subject matter was that the thesis
of this book is that Owen’s doctrine of communion with the triune God was
the foundation of his theology of public worship. A sub-thesis is that Owen
regarded public worship as the highest expression of the believer’s communion
with the triune God.
The chapters of a historical research project must advance the thesis or
they must be cut from the outline eventually. This author initially included a
chapter on the Sabbath that had to be cut because it incorporated the worship
theme but not the Trinity theme. Rather than devoting a distinct chapter to the
Sabbath, the author needed instead to note Owen’s omission in this case at an
appropriate place in another chapter.
Each chapter should have its own thesis as well that both directs the content
of that chapter and relates the chapter to the primary thesis of the research as
a whole. This present book on Reformed Scholasticism has sought to exemplify
this point by including a statement in the introduction of each chapter that
connects the content of that chapter to the overarching theme of studying and
profiting from the study of Reformed scholasticism. Doing so retains both
unity and momentum in historical writing.
Providing a preliminary bibliography
Developing a preliminary bibliography is an important part of outlining

and proposing a research project. It reflects the initial research that led to a
provisional thesis statement and proposed outline. Many universities require
this step prior to officially enrolling in an academic program. A preliminary
bibliography will not be exhaustive and it may include a list of books and
articles that students have not yet read but that they think may be relevant
to their work. A preliminary bibliography is an exercise in locating relevant
primary and secondary sources as the student begins to work through a
tentative reading list.
2
Ryan M. McGraw, A Heavenly Directory. Trinitarian Piety, Public Worship, and a Reassessment of
John Owen’s Theology, Reformed Historical Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014),
chapter 1.
Like the outline, a bibliography gives those supervising a research project

something to interact with critically. This is a crucial aspect of learning
through the process of doing historical research. Supervisors can look through
the list of potentially helpful resources and add to or subtract from it based
on what they know. Do not expect supervisors to do all of the work for you.
This is your research, not theirs. You should consider their expertise as a
tool to help you do your own work. This kind of critical interaction will help
beginning students in particular learn what avenues to pursue and which
ones to abandon. Supervisors will help you most effectively if you give them
something to discuss with you or that piques their interests.
Refining a thesis and altering an outline
Students of Reformed scholasticism must learn to refine their theses and

alter their outlines as they write and obtain critical feedback on their work.
Proposing a thesis statement and plan for research are vital components of
doing historical research. However, students should not set their hearts
irrevocably on their initial proposals. Remember that you are learning as you
go and the more you write about a subject the better qualified you will become
to treat it effectively. Crave correction and instruction. Do not fear it.
Sometimes responding to critical feedback as research progresses might
mean abandoning a thesis or topic to pursue better or more viable one. This
creates more work for students, but it is the primary way that they will learn
through researching and writing about their chosen topics. The goal should not
be to get everything right the first time, but to keep revising a thesis, outline,
and bibliography until it is adequate for the student’s purposes. Celebrated
historian John Patrick Donnelly once spent six months of his doctoral studies
pursuing an avenue of research that he discovered was wrong and needed a
thorough overhaul.3 This process can be frustrating and may even appear futile
when it happens, but it is part of the process of making a good historian. We
must be self-critical as well as willing to receive criticism from others.
3
A. Lynn Martin, “An Irish-American Jesuit in the Madison Mafia,” in From Rome to Zurich, between
Ignatius and Vermigli: Essays in Honor of John Patrick Donnelly, ed. Kathleen M. Comerford, Gary
W. Jenkins, and William John Torrance Kirby, vol. 184, Studies in the History of Christian Traditions
Writing a project
The process of writing in general, and of writing about Reformed scholasticism

in particular, will vary significantly from student to student. The following
suggestions are designed to furnish students with some ideas regarding where
to begin and how to move forward.
Recognize that writing about any subject involving substantial research
should be cyclical and provisional in nature. Students should be in constant
dialogue with primary and secondary sources as well as with their critical
readers who help them through their projects. This involves humility. As
Trueman notes, we should treat our theories as hypotheses that are liable to
correction from beginning to end.4
Get something on paper as soon as possible. After doing initial research,
which should be extensive, it is better to start writing out material (even if
from memory initially) than it is to risk drowning in information. Writers can
always add new paragraphs to sections and add fresh sources to footnotes in
existing sections of one’s work. It is always possible to correct and to expand
material with ease by copying, pasting, and cutting material. Beware, however,
of making a project unwieldy in this process. Students have to set a cutoff point
somewhere. A good thesis statement and outline will help determine what this
approximate cutoff point will be.
Do not rest your primary evidence on one book primarily. Doing so will
truncate one’s conclusions about a historical figure by cutting off the possibility
of tracing developments in that author’s thought over time. It can also result
in a partial picture of that figure’s relationship to Reformed scholastic thought
more broadly. This is why Trueman recommends obtaining an accumulation of
varied evidences.5 Kay’s treatment of Owen’s trinitarianism is deficient to some
extent in this regard in light of the fact that he rests his case predominantly on
Communion with God.6 Derek Cooper similarly reduces much of his research
on Thomas Manton to Manton’s commentary on James, whereas Manton’s
4
Crossway, 2010), 73.
5
6
Brian Kay, Trinitarian Spirituality: John Owen and the Doctrine of God in Western Devotion
(Bletchley, Milton Keynes, and Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2007).
printed works span twenty-two closely printed volumes.7 It is also insufficient

to master the writings of a single author alone to write historical theology
well. Doing so can result in summarizing and explaining the author’s thought
without adequately analyzing their thought in their intellectual context. This
point coincides with the present author’s counsel in a previous chapter about
using a wide array of sources to set a broad historical context.
Avoid raising questions that you do not intend to answer. This means
avoiding the introduction of theological and philosophical terms that you do
not intend to define. In other words, do not reference theological concepts
or people that you do not have space to introduce properly. We should not
assume that other experts in our field of study understand the meaning of
terms in the same way we do. Such assumptions make reading difficult even
for the initiated and can result in misunderstandings and lack of clarity in
writing. Even accomplished historians can be subject to this problem.8
Write in the past tense regarding the thoughts and actions of dead authors;
write in the present tense to describe the thoughts and actions of living authors.
While Calvin still says and thinks things in heaven, the Calvin represented by
historical documents is not saying anything beyond what he left us in print.
In other words, Calvin said and wrote things, of which readers have some
surviving record. Readers do not know what he says or thinks now. On the
other hand, if one references Muller’s writings about Calvin, then they have
some idea of what Muller currently thinks or says about Calvin and the present
tense is appropriate.
Do not make assertions in writing that cannot be supported fully from
the evidence. This point goes beyond the earlier warning against making
unnecessary conjectures. Every new assertion in a paragraph requires a
footnote to prove that assertion or argument. As it is with teaching math to
young children, it is not enough to have the right answer if you cannot show
your teacher how you arrived at it. Shy away from guesswork and make sure
7
Derek Cooper, “The Ecumenical Exegete: Thomas Manton’s Commentary on James in Relation
to Its Protestant Predecessors, Contemporaries, and Successors” (PhD diss., Lutheran Theological
Seminary, 2008).
8
A recent example of a difficult book due to a complex use of under-defined terms by a celebrated
historian is Richard A. Muller, Divine Will and Human Choice: Freedom, Contingency, and Necessity
in Early Modern Reformed Thought (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2017).
you show your work. Chances are that someone will read your work who
knows a lot about a subject that you touch in passing only. Your treatment may
lack nuances that you are yet unaware of. Become increasingly aware of what
you do not know and write solid conclusions about what you do know. Make
assertions that appear to be the most likely ones to draw from the evidence
available.
Take criticism of your writing well, but do not follow your mentors slavishly.9
On submitting the first chapter of his PhD project, one of this author’s readers
told him to start over due to lack of adequate analysis and contextualization.
Such rigid and thorough criticism was valuable and it resulted in a much better
book in the long run. Receiving this kind of critical feedback is essential to
learning to do good work. However, even the best scholars are not infallible.
This author later found that one of his readers blurred the distinction between
the analogia Scripturae and the analogia Fidei in print (which criticism this
reader accepted graciously and consented to).10 Receiving criticism humbly
does not, however, mean acquiescing to those who know more than they do
in all cases. During the defense of his thesis, one scholar whom the author has
learned from greatly challenged his contention that Owen’s Theologoumena
Pantodapa was primarily a Reformed prolegomena rather than a covenant
theology. This pressed the author toward further research and writing to prove
his case, since he believed that this was where the evidence led him. This
resulted eventually in a more solid subsequent publication on the subject.11
Use an outside source to check for good writing and for proper use of
grammar. Many works go into print due to their excellent content, which are,
nevertheless, poorly written. Even renowned scholars in their fields can be
poor writers. The best compliments that the present author received on his
PhD book came from pastors and church members who could follow what he
wrote in spite of having little expertise related to the subject of the book. This
9
Alister Chapman, John Coffey, and Brad S. Gregory, eds., Seeing Things Their Way: Intellectual
History and the Return of Religion (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2009), 38.
10
Ruprecht, 2010), 88.
11
Ryan M. McGraw, John Owen: Trajectories in Reformed Orthodox Theology (New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2017), chapter 6.
resulted from having lots of help from people who had no expertise in this field,
but who were expert grammarians, editors, and writers. Your work is only as
valuable as it is readable. Using outside resources to improve readability can
make your work more useful to more people.
Write with an aim to publish. While the Lord always blesses research
pursued with prayer and a practical aim in view, those studying Reformed
scholasticism on a professional level should aim to stretch the usefulness of
their work as far as possible. If your work is not publishable, then why write
it? If you spend so much time researching and writing, then why should you
not strive to take the fruits of your labors to the highest level, with the Lord’s
blessing, by publishing it? Publishing with a reputable academic publisher also
adds another substantial layer of peer review in most cases (which will likely
entail more research and revision before the end of the process). Publishing
through such venues can turn a good project into an excellent one. Non-
academic publishers simply cannot compete with this process due to the
personnel and expense involved in it. Fewer people read academic books than
those published for a broader audience, but publishing one makes the writer
work harder and learn more before all is said and done. If for some reason you
cannot publish your work, then submit to this as the Lord’s providence and
do not despair. All is not lost. Ministers, in particular, can still prayerfully use
what they learn for the benefit of the church by shaping how they think and
how they teach. Publishing historical theology, coupled with writing analytical
book reviews, has the advantage of accumulating a wealth of information to
draw from in other writing projects. Learning to begin with such goals in view
provides a potentially solid platform upon which to write in other areas of
theology later.
Lastly, remember humbly that all of your conclusions are provisional.
Historical contexts are multifaceted and often complicated. Neither a single
author nor series of authors knows everything that can be known about any
historical context. God alone knows all things. As a result, those writing
historical theology should guard their language in making many historical
contentions. For example, appropriate expressions could include: “based on
the available evidence, the present author concludes … ,” “it appears that … , ”
“more research is required …, ” “other fruitful questions might include … , ”
“in light of the available evidence, the author appears to have intended … , ”
etc. Beware as well of confusing an author’s intentions, which are drawn from
publicly available records, with imputing motives to that author. Motives are
lost in an author’s mind and authors may not even have been entirely self-
conscious with respect to the full scope of their own intentions.12
Keeping track of everything
Writing involves taking good notes and keeping track of large amounts of
information to synthesize and analyze it. Some of the information that we
gather will be useful immediately while some of it may come in handy later.
This author has found at least two things to be indispensable for keeping track
of everything throughout the process of research and writing.
First, students should use a bibliographic tool, such as Zotero. Zotero is a
free bibliographic plug in that can be obtained from zotero.org. It provides
plug ins for Microsoft Word as well as for Pages (which is far less useful and
versatile than Word for any kind of serious writing). Zotero enables users to
input bibliographic information from online resources, such as WorldCat
and other online databases. This facilitates keeping track of books and
articles. Users may need to edit some of the information that Zotero adds to a
bibliographic list automatically, but once the source in question is added to one
list, then Zotero enables researchers to create new lists and to add references
to a document through the click of a button. This resource saves countless
hours in formatting footnotes and creating bibliographies, since Zotero can
do these things automatically. You can also collect lists of books and articles
by subject and even keep track of your own personal library. Using Zotero for
all references enables one to change the citation style of his or her work with
the click of a button. This is indispensable in working with various publishers,
since they sometimes shift between Chicago Manual, Oxford, Turabian,
or their own unique style guides. Teachers and others can create annotated
bibliographies with ease using this tool as well. It is virtually irresponsible to
neglect invaluable tools like this one, since it frees researchers to devote their
time to more important tasks than formatting footnotes and bibliographies.
12
Second, take notes organized by subject in some fashion. However, do not

take notes on everything that you read. Stay focused. Collect material that
is relevant to your thesis. You can note other items that you may use later
for other purposes, but do not lose time by getting bogged down with every
detail of every book or article read. If you use electronic books, such as I have
done with Brill’s edition of the Leiden Synopsis,13 then you can copy and paste
Latin and English text directly into a set of notes for later use. Since electronic
documents are searchable, students should learn to include key words in their
notes that they can use later to locate material relevant to specific subjects
of research. In relation to Reformed scholasticism, this should likely include
references to key Latin or Greek theological terms. If the material included in
these notes is significant enough, then you can copy and paste it into separate
files organized by topic. Regardless of how a writer keeps track of their research
notes, it is vital to develop some method of doing so.
Conclusion
Many students of Reformed scholasticism will be interested in this subject due

to theological commitments and interests. The preceding chapters on research
methodology, while recognizing the legitimacy and value of such concerns,
have encouraged students to set theological agendas aside temporarily to hear
historic Reformed authors speak in their own voices, reflecting their own
questions. The concluding chapter of this book will suggest how to reintegrate
these interests after completing significant historical research related to
Reformed scholasticism. The directions given above related to primary and
secondary sources, historical thinking, and historical writing are intended to
promote forward momentum as students delve into issues related to Reformed
scholasticism. The following chapters introduce the basic nature and character
of Reformed scholasticism itself.
13
A. Walaeus et al., Synopsis Purioris Theologiae = Synopsis of a Purer Theology, ed. Henk van den Belt,
trans. Riemer A. Faber, vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2015).
Part Three
The Nature of Reformed

Scholasticism:
Method and Trajectories
94
6
General History and Terminology
Every discipline includes specific terminology related to that discipline.

While the introductory chapter of this book presented reasons for studying
Reformed scholasticism, the task remains to set parameters for pursuing
research in this area. Reformed scholasticism overlaps with a number of other
historical movements and it has its own descriptive terms as well. To study
Reformed scholasticism, therefore, it is necessary to understand the general
periodization of the movement, its relation to other historical movements, and
the most prominent standard terminology related to it.
The author’s goal in this chapter is to introduce readers to common
classifications, ideas, and terms related to Reformed scholasticism with
simplicity, brevity, and clarity. Doing so will help students find their footing
to move forward. As such, the material does not develop debates over issues
related to these themes, but rather it covers the general historical scope of the
Reformed scholasticism, introduces broader relevant historical movements,
and attempts to introduce the definitions of and interrelationship between
commonly used terms. Students should follow the works cited in the footnotes
to study these issues with greater depth and nuance.
Historical scope
Periodization in history is always an imprecise science. People did not wake up

one morning and realize that they were living in the medieval rather than the
early church period. Likewise, historical figures developed their ideas fluidly
in the eras spanning what we call the pre-Reformation to the Reformation
and post-Reformation periods. Herman Selderhuis, in his recent biography
of Martin Luther, illustrates this point well when he concludes that to his
dying day Luther was, in many respects, still a monk.1 While his theology was
decisively Protestant, he retained many ideas and habits that he acquired in
the monastery. This is virtually a microcosm of what we should expect when
studying people’s ideas in historical contexts that shifted gradually and often
imperceptibly.
Historians, however, need to break history down into general periods in
some fashion to enable them to set parameters around their studies and to
know what to look for. While such periods can sometimes appear arbitrary or
even imprecise, they are useful as general guides to any field of history.
Though Reformed scholasticism and Reformed orthodoxy are not
synonyms, most scholars have more or less adopted Richard Muller’s division
of the period into early, high, and late orthodoxy as representing useful bench
marks for both movements.2 The broad sketch of these periods below explains
the general characteristics both of orthodoxy and of scholasticism under each
division, leaving a clearer definition of key terms for later in the chapter.
Early orthodoxy (1560–1620)
Early orthodoxy marks a transition from the magisterial Reformation to

the period of post-Reformation theology. It roughly spans from 1560 to
1620, though the close of the period is more difficult to identify than its
inception. The primary characteristic of this first stage of Reformed orthodoxy
is confessionalization.3 During this period, Reformed (and Lutheran)
communions sought to distinguish themselves more clearly from others by
framing and adopting confessions of faith. Reformed churches established
their identity more clearly through documents such as the Scots Confession
(1560), the Belgic Confession of Faith (1561), the Heidelberg Catechism
1
Herman Selderhuis, Martin Luther: A Spiritual Biography (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 312–13.
2
Orthodoxy, Ca. 1520 to Ca. 1725, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 1:30–2;
Muller, Richard A. “The Problem of Protestant Scholasticism—A Review and Definition,” in
Reformation and Scholasticism: An Ecumenical Enterprise, ed. Willem J. van Asselt and Eef Dekker
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001); Dolph te Velde, “Reformed Theology and Scholasticism,”
in Cambridge Companion to Reformed Theology, ed. Paul T. Nimmo and David A. F. Ferguson
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 217–22; Willem J. van Asselt et al., Introduction
to Reformed Scholasticism, trans. Albert Gootjes (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books,
2011), 103–93.
3
Muller, PRRD, 1:31.
General History and Terminology 97
(1563), the Second Helvetic Confession (1566), and many others that are
less well known and used less widely. James Dennison has highlighted the
prevalence of such confessions during this period by collecting many of them
into four large volumes.4 This collection shows that confessionalization began
prior to 1560 and continued into the high orthodox period as well. Reformed
confessions distinguished Reformed churches from others, who were also
writing confessions at the time. The Roman Catholic Council of Trent (1545–
63) is one of the most notable examples of this trend because Protestants began
to develop their systems of theology more fully in response to the canons
and decrees of Trent as well as to Roman Catholic apologists, notably Robert
Bellarmine (1542–1621).5
Most scholars regard the early orthodox period as ending with or around
the Synod of Dort (1618–19), which was the closest thing to an ecumenical
Reformed synod in post-Reformation theology.6 While some have argued
against defining orthodoxy in light of the rise of such confessions,7 most
scholars have recognized that doing so is one of the primary distinctive features
of early orthodoxy. In terms of content, Richard Muller has argued at length
that the doctrines of Scripture and of God as the two principia of Reformed
theology helped shape the Reformed system.8 Subsequent chapters will treat
these principia and their influence on Reformed thought in more detail.
In terms of scholasticism, for now it is sufficient to state that early orthodoxy
gradually included the reincorporation of scholastic method into Reformed
thought. The primary goal in doing so was to develop a method of teaching
confessional Reformed theology that was suitable to theological schools.9
4
James T. Dennison, Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, 4
vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008).
5
Muller, PRRD, 1:63–4; Byung Soo Han, Symphonia Catholica: The Merger of Patristic and
Contemporary Sources in the Theological Method of Amandus Polanus (1561–1610), vol. 30, Reformed
Historical Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 30:64–5.
6
F. A. van Lieburg and Aza Goudriaan, Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619) (Leiden: Brill,
2011).
7
W. Bradford Littlejohn and Scott N. Kindred-Barnes, eds., Richard Hooker and Reformed Orthodoxy,
vol. 40, Reformed Historical Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017), 40:12.
8
Muller, PRRD, 1:126–7.
9
The entirety of Jordan J. Ballor, David S. Sytsma, and Jason Zuidema, eds., Church and School in
Early Modern Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of a Theological
Tradition, vol. 170, Studies in the History of Christian Traditions (Leiden: Brill, 2013) is devoted to
this theme.
Reflection on methodology marked the work of authors such as Andreas

Hyperius at the inception of this period as well as that of Franciscus Junius
nearer to its end.10 Hyperius, in particular, argued for a distinction between
scholastic and popular theology.11 Both modes of theology were designed to
disseminate Reformed orthodoxy, but they differed in form depending on
their intended audiences. Scholastic theology aimed at students in the schools
while popular theology aimed at people in the pews. Scholastic theology
informed popular theology while each retained its appropriate form and depth
of content.
High orthodoxy (1620–1700)
High orthodoxy represents Reformed orthodox theology in full bloom.

This period generally covers 1620, following Dort, until the full onset of the
Enlightenment somewhere around 1700. Now that a Reformed confessional
identity had been largely established, Reformed authors developed their
systems of thought with greater depth and precision. This expansion of
Reformed thought found confessional expressions as well in documents such
as the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), the Savoy Declaration of
Faith and Order (1658), the Formula Consensus Helvetica (1675), and even
in the so-called London Baptist Confession (1689). Savoy and the Baptist
Confession overtly built on the Westminster Confession while the less widely
accepted Consensus Helvetic addressed more specific developments, such
as a form of hypothetical universalism. As noted in an early chapter, many
notable theologians arose during this period in various parts of the Reformed
world who produced extensive and lengthy expositions of Reformed doctrine,
especially in the schools.
Scholasticism and orthodoxy became much more thoroughly and
self-consciously intertwined during this period. Reformed and Lutheran
authors alike drew more extensively from medieval scholastic distinctions
10
Andreas Hyperius, Methodus Theologiae Adj. Eft. De Ejusdem Vita Et Obita Oratis Wigandi Arthii
(Basileae, 1562); Franciscus Junius, De Theologia Vera; Ortu, Natura, Formis, Partibus, Et Modo
(Lugduni Batavorum, 1594).
11
Sinnema, “The Distinction between Scholastic and Popular: Andreas Hyperius and Reformed
Scholasticism.”
to express and defend their systems of thought. Muller has noted well that it
is questionable whether Reformed theology could have survived this period
without doing so, due to the fact that Reformed authors needed a more precise
apparatus to develop their systems of theology in light of current challenges.12
Accordingly, this period is marked by some of the fullest expressions of the
Reformed system of theology, most of which were written in Latin and were
presented in scholastic dress. As a subsequent chapter will demonstrate, this
is why some modern authors have tried to identify a decisive breach between
Reformation and post-Reformation theology.13 Evaluating this contention
depends largely on how one defines scholasticism and how one evaluates the
effect of using scholastic method on the fundamental content and character of
Reformed thought.
Late orthodoxy (1700–90)
I have already noted above the difficulties that characterize the late orthodox
period. The name itself implies the approaching end of a movement. As is true
of periodization in general, this descriptive term is more or less accurate. Yet
for the sake of the historian, every historical movement has to end somewhere.
Late orthodoxy broadly encompasses the time period from around 1700 to
1790, though Dolph te Velde brings this period to a close in 1750.14 This is the
point at which dates become even more imprecise.
The onset of this period is somewhere around the beginning of the
Enlightenment. Its close, following the later date, is somewhere near the
unfolding of the French Revolution (1789–99), when Enlightenment
thinking had come to its own and became predominant in many countries.
With regard to orthodoxy, some authors sought to redefine the boundaries
of Reformed confessional theology while others took a more conservative
approach. The same was true with respect to the scholastic method. The
12
13
For a survey of varying approaches to Reformed scholasticism, see van Asselt, who describes
research related to this field in terms of five stages of methodological shifting. Willem J. van Asselt,
“Reformed Orthodoxy: A Short History of Research,” in A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, ed.
H. J. Selderhuis, vol. 40, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 11–26.
14
Dolph te Velde, “Reformed Theology and Scholasticism,” 215.
word that comes to mind in describing this period is fragmentation. The

primary causes of this fragmentation were the rise of new philosophical
systems, the progress of the scientific revolution, the First Great Awakening,
political upheaval, and many other factors. Such features make studying
late orthodoxy a more difficult task, in many respects, than studying the
early and high orthodox periods due to the widening diversity of historical
contexts.
In spite of these facts, the general division of Reformed orthodoxy and
Reformed scholasticism into early, high, and late segments is useful for
students of these movements in that it enables them to make some cautious
generalizations surrounding historical shifts and international developments.
As a result, students of Reformed scholasticism should focus their attention
primarily on the development of Reformed theology and its dissemination in
theological schools from 1560–1790.
Related historical movements
To study Reformed scholasticism it is important to remember and to

acknowledge the significant overlap that this branch of intellectual history has
with others. This includes related movements that grew up prior to and during
the time period in question. Taking these things into consideration illustrates,
in part, how to set a broad context for your research. This should include,
but may not necessarily be limited to, delving into medieval theology and
method, the influence of the Renaissance on Reformed thought, and various
philosophical developments.
The purpose of this section is not to provide readers with all full
exposition of any of these movements as much as to state and to illustrate
why they are relevant to studying Reformed scholasticism. In other words,
rather than giving readers a full account of what they will find in relation
to each issue treated, the author hopes to show students why they need
to find out and how these issues affect their studies. Subsequent chapters
will expand examples drawn from each of these areas as they grow out of
relevant discussions.
Medieval theology and method
Any sound treatment of Reformed scholasticism must include continuities

and discontinuities with medieval theology and methodology. Muller
exemplifies this point by the fact that roughly 20 percent (sometimes more) of
each volume in his Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics establishes medieval
developments in theology. The medieval context is particularly important in
relation to method, since scholastic method was both a development and a
staple of medieval theology.15
The above material has largely assumed that scholastic theology entailed
a method of teaching that was suited to the schools. The development of this
method was not limited to but found its full fruition in the rise of medieval
universities.16 Scholasticism was a means of presenting, debating, and
defending theology in a manner designed to inculcate ideas among scholars.
Medieval developments in this arena set a precedent for theological education
for centuries to come. Even though early Reformed theology tended to react
against the abuses of medieval theology and method, Protestant theologians
could hardly escape the centuries of history that found reflection in their own
educations. While some authors, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, wrote
explicitly against scholastic theology, modern scholars have recognized more
or less conscious traces of it in their works.17 As Protestants became increasingly
comfortable with using elements of scholastic method, some even provided
their students with criteria to help them sift through the medieval period. For
example, Bernardinus de Moor divided scholasticism itself into three periods,
evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of each period. He argued that earlier
scholastics, such as Lombard and, were more useful than later authors, such as
15
Ulrich G. Leinsle, Introduction to Scholastic Theology, trans. Michael J. Miller (Washington, DC:
Catholic University of America Press, 2010).
16
Leinsle, Scholastic Theology, 120.
17
D. V. N. Bagchi, “Sic et Non: Luther and Scholasticism,” in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in
Reassessment, ed. R. Scott Clark and Carl R. Trueman (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006), 3–15; D.
C. Steinmetz, “The Scholastic Calvin,” in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment (Carlisle:
Paternoster, 1999), 16–30; Lowell C. Green, “Melanchthon’s Relation to Scholasticism,” in Protestant
Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006); Volker Leppin, “Luther’s
Transformation of Medieval Thought: Continuity and Discontinuity,” in The Oxford Handbook of
Martin Luther’s Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 115–24; Gerhard Muller, “Luther’s
Transformation of Medieval Thought: Discontinuity and Continuity,” in The Oxford Handbook of
Martin Luther’s Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 105–14.
Durandus of Pourcain (1275–1334), due to the fact that they sought primarily
to provide tools to help with the interpretation of Scripture.18 Eric Parker
notes that Martin Bucer (1491–1551) had earlier referred to Aquinas as “the
prince of the scholastics.”19 De Moor located some of the primary faults of
later scholastic theology in moving away from the text of Scripture to discuss
speculative questions about the Virgin Mary. Leinsle’s treatment of scholastic
method corroborates this assessment by noting the vital importance of biblical
commentaries in the careers of authors such as Aquinas.20 The point is that
whether unconsciously or consciously, medieval theology and methodology
had an inescapable influence on Reformed scholasticism.21
The content of medieval theology influenced Reformed thinking as well.
Medieval reflections on the doctrine of the Trinity furnish us with a helpful
preliminary example. Summarizing some of the relevant secondary literature
on this issue will illustrate this point clearly, in relation both to doctrinal and
pietistic elements of trinitarian doctrine. As Rik van Nieuwenhove observes,
all Western reflection on the Trinity harks back to Augustine in one respect or
another.22 Following Augustine, authors such as Richard St. Victor (d. 1173)
taught that the historical missions of the divine persons reflected their inner
processions.23 Contemporary writers, such as Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–
1153), pushed the Augustinian idea of intratrinitarian love into a model of a
mystical union of the divine and human wills as mediated through Christ.24
Hugh St. Victor (1096–1141) imported such ideas into the sacraments, by stating
that the sign, signification, and efficacy of the sacraments corresponded to the
18
Translation Center, 2014).
19
Eric M. Parker, “‘Saint Dionysius:’ Martin Bucer’s Transformation of the Pseudo-Areopagite,” in
Theologies of Retrieval: An Exploration and Appraisal, ed. Darren Sarisky (London: T&T Clark,
2017), 126.
20
21
As Muller illustrates in relation to issues surrounding necessity and contingency. Richard A. Muller,
Divine Will and Human Choice: Freedom, Contingency, and Necessity in Early Modern Reformed
Thought (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2017), 83.
22
Press, 2012), 19.
23
Van Nieuwenhove, Introduction to Medieval Theology, 24.
24
appropriate works of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.25 In line with such mystical
and practical reflections on the Trinity, Richard St. Victor echoed Augustine’s
emphasis on intratrinitarian love, noting that such love demanded a plurality
of persons in the Godhead.26 This enabled him to push for the reflection of
this divine love in the experience of believers through union and communion
with Christ. These emphases consisted the background of the assertions of
Reformed orthodox theologians, such as Richard Sibbes (1577–1635) and John
Owen, who imported similar applications of the Trinity into the doctrine of the
sacraments and of communion with God through Christ, respectively.27
Thomas Aquinas (1225–74) exemplified the theological and practical
tendencies of medieval trinitarian doctrine in that his focus was primarily
soteriological.28 In his theological formulation, he regarded the Father as
the principle of the Godhead, the Son as the Word and image of the Father,
and the Spirit as both gift and divine love.29 This would find echoes in later
Reformed authors, such as Patrick Gillespie (1617–75), in treatments of the
work of the divine persons in the eternal covenant of redemption and the
historical covenant of grace.30 The aim in both the cases of medieval trinitarian
theology and of later Reformed appropriations was soteriological, as were the
theological underpinnings of the doctrine itself. Authors like Gillespie adapted
the outward forms of medieval developments to meet the needs of Reformed
covenant theology. In the medieval period, similar emphases appeared in
relation to Bonaventure’s assertion that the Spirit as love and gift was the
source of all love and gifts to believers from the Father through Christ.31 Van
25
26
27
Richard Sibbes, The Complete Works of Richard Sibbes (Edinburgh: James Nichols, 1862), 4:329;
John Owen, The Works of John Owen, D.D., ed. William H. Goold (Edinburgh: Johnstone & Hunter,
1850), 2:8–9.
28
29
30
Patrick Gillespie, The Ark of the Covenant Opened, Or, a Treatise of the Covenant of Redemption
Between God and Christ, as the Foundation of the Covenant of Grace the Second Part, Wherein Is
Proved, That There Is Such a Covenant, the Necessity of It, the Nature, Properties, Parties Thereof, the
Tenor, Articles, Subject-Matter of Redemption, the Commands, Conditions, and Promises Annexed, the
Harmony of the Covenant of Reconciliation Made with Sinners, Wherein They Agree, Wherein They
Differ, Grounds of Comfort from the Covenant of Suretiship (London: Printed for Thomas Pankhurst,
1677).
31
Nieuwenhove asserts at the outset of his book that the Trinity shaped every
aspect of medieval theology and spirituality.32 While Reformed theology
did not always reflect this emphasis evenly, it is undeniable that Reformed
trinitarian theology drew both theoretically and practically from medieval
developments as much as from the early church fathers.33
In this connection, students should remember as well that Reformed
scholasticism largely developed its precise vocabulary and its manner of stating
and addressing questions from medieval scholasticism. Muller thus concludes
that post-Reformation theology simultaneously rejected portions of medieval
theology even while grew out of medieval soil.34 Such examples provide some
seed thoughts as to why a basic grasp of medieval theology and methodology
is essential to any responsible treatment of Reformed scholasticism.
The Renaissance
The Renaissance was, in many respects, a revival of classical learning with an

emphasis on returning to the sources (ad fontes) in their original languages. The
influence of this movement on the Protestant Reformation is well established.35
International figures, such as Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466–1536), highlight
the intersection of so-called humanist studies and theological development in
light of the influence that they had on both movements. Erasmus, for example,
produced a widely used edition of the Greek New Testament on the one hand
while he clashed swords with Martin Luther over the freedom of the human
will on the other.36 Renaissance studies inevitably led to a strong emphasis on
32
33
Muller illustrates this point in light of the fifteenth-century Council of Florence and the way that it
guarded against separating personhood and essence in God. This point became relevant in sixteenth-
and seventeenth-century debates over whether eternal generation referred to Christ’s essence and
person or to his person only. Most Reformed authors followed the former position, contra Calvin,
following the conclusions reached by Florence. See Muller, PRRD, 4:55–8; Brannon Ellis, Calvin,
Classical Trinitarianism, and the Aseity of the Son (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 56–60.
34
Muller, PRRD, 1:97.
35
As a representative sample, see William Roscoe Estep, Renaissance and Reformation (Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 1995).
36
Herman Selderhuis, Martin Luther: A Spiritual Biography (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 205–9;
Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 19–20.
studying the Bible in the original Greek and Hebrew, though Hebraic studies
took longer to develop.37
Humanistic studies spilled over into theological reflection. Thus, Luther
translated Erasmus’s Greek New Testament into German while engaging
him in wide-ranging theological debates. Renaissance studies affected both
Protestant and Roman Catholic scholarship. While medieval theologians,
such as Aquinas, wrote Bible commentaries, Reformation-era Roman Catholic
theologians, such as Thommaso de vio Cajetan (1469–1534), interacted heavily
with the original text of Scripture in lengthy volumes as well.38
The Renaissance necessarily affected education at the universities, which is
where this movement intersects with scholasticism. Renaissance humanists,
like many early Protestant reformers, generally wrote negatively about
scholasticism, blaming it for moving students away from original texts and
from classical learning.39 Petrarch (1304–74) exemplified this attitude when
he rejected scholasticism and its “Aristotelian base” as being “too speculative,
too sterile, and too unproductive of religious imagination and ethical fervor.”40
Though humanist influences were virtually ubiquitous by the time of the
Reformation, it may surprise some to read Leinsle’s observation that humanist
departments were only incorporated successfully and initially into the relatively
new university at Wittenberg.41 What this meant was that Protestant university
37
Stephen G. Burnett, From Christian Hebraism to Jewish Studies: Johannes Buxtorf (1564–1629) and
Hebrew Learning in the Seventeenth Century, Studies in the History of Christian Thought (Leiden:
Brill, 1996).
38
For Old and New Testament examples, see Thommaso Cajetan, Commentarii Illustres Planeq́;
Insignes in Quinque Mosaicos Libros, Thomae De Vio, Caietani, Adiectis Insuper Ad Margine[m]
Annotationibus a F. Antonio Fo[n]seca Lusitano, Quibus Temporum & Locoru[m] Ratio, Tropi,
Phrases, Lociq́; Intellectu Difficiles Explicantur: Accessit Rerum Maxime Insignium Index Copiosissimus
(Paris: Apud Ioannem Paruum, 1539); Thommaso Cajetan, Epistolae Pauli Et Aliorum Apostolorum:
Juxta Sens. Literal. Enarratae. Acc: Actus Apostol. Comm. Ejusd. Illustr (Paris, 1540). Edward Leigh
acknowledged Cajetan’s usefulness as a biblical exegete without leaving his reputation untarnished:
“Cajetan went over all the Scripture, saving the Canticles and the prophets, which dying he left begun,
and the Revelation … He was both a learned and a moderate Papist, as Chamier and Whitaker both
shew. He was chiefly intent on the literal sense, and that according to the Hebrew truth, of which
Tongue he had little knowledge, but had by him those that were skilled in the Hebrew, who would
interpret ad verbum, not only exactly, but superstitiously, and often absurdly, which often drew the
like expositions from the Cardinal.” Edward Leigh, A Systeme or Body of Divinity Consisting of Ten
Books, Wherein the Fundamentals and Main Grounds of Religion Are Opened (London, 1654), 117.
39
William Roscoe Estep, Renaissance and Reformation (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 25.
40
Bard Thompson, Humanists and Reformers: A History of the Renaissance and Reformation (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 210.
41
education often grew organically from its medieval predecessors, while these
universities gradually and simultaneously incorporated the humanist stress on
classical learning and linguistic studies.
In this author’s opinion, the Renaissance should be less prominent in the
study of Reformed scholasticism than the influences of medieval theology
and method should be. Nevertheless, one readily sees the clear evidences of
humanist training in the plethora of allusions to Greek and Roman philosophy
and mythology, even in the sermons of Reformed orthodox ministers, such
as Thomas Watson (1620–86).42 For that matter, in conjunction with the
Renaissance, the scientific revolution retained many scholastic terms and
distinctions, such as genus and species and many others.
Philosophy
With regard to philosophy, I can do little more in this section than give hints
as to how and why philosophical developments are relevant to scholastic
theology.43 On the surface, virtually all Reformed scholastic systems included
treatments of the role of philosophy in relation to the knowledge of God in their
prolegomena. Muller observes that there is “a certain degree of discontinuity”
between the views of the early Reformers on the use of philosophy in theology
and the developments of its use in Reformed orthodoxy.44
Early and high orthodox Reformed scholastics tended to regard philosophy
largely in negative terms with regard to the development of theological content.
Theophilus Gale (1628–78), for example, wrote a large tome treating the history
of philosophy as the history of apostasy from man’s original knowledge of
42
For example, Watson assumes a knowledge of Tully, Demosthenes, Plato, and the myths of Hercules
to illustrate the kind of diligence and zeal required in pursing the glory of God. Thomas Watson,
A Body of Practical Divinity, Consisting of Above One Hundred Seventy Six Sermons on the Lesser
Catechism Composed by the Reverend Assembly of Divines at Westminster: With a Supplement of
Some Sermons on Several Texts of Scripture. by Thomas Watson, Formerly Minister at St. Stephen’s
Walbrook, London. Printed from His Own Hand-Writing. Recommended by Several Ministers
to Masters of Families and Others (London: Printed for Thomas Parkurst, at the Bible and Three
Crowns in Cheapside, near Mercers-Chappel, 1692), 12.
43
For a detailed and careful analysis of philosophy in high orthodox Dutch Reformed theology as an
example, see Aza Goudriaan, Reformed Orthodoxy and Philosophy, 1625–1750 Gisbertus Voetius,
Petrus Van Mastricht, and Anthonius Driessen (Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill, 2006).
44
Muller, PRRD, 1:360.
God.45 Late orthodoxy admitted greater diversity in relation to such themes in

light of Enlightenment philosophical innovations. Dewey Wallace has written
a provocative account that argues through well-chosen historical figures that
such approaches to philosophy shifted in many cases during the end of the
high orthodox period and into late orthodoxy.46 Among other things, this led
to new approaches to prolegomena that were rooted in arguments from the
natural knowledge of God instead of from divine revelation. During this period,
some Reformed authors attempted to incorporate Cartesian philosophy into
Reformed thought while others, such as Isaac Watts (1674–1748), sought to
replace Aristotelian with Lockean logic.47 In any case, all Reformed scholastics
had to address the philosophy current at the time during each of the three
periods of Reformed orthodoxy. In an introductory essay to the subject, Aza
Goudriaan includes Aristolelianism, Ramism, Cartesianism, Hobbes, Meijer,
Spinoza, Geulinx, and others as relevant to this field.48
As Goudriaan’s list indicates, Reformed interaction with philosophy was
not limited to contemporary trends. In this regard, pride of place must go to
the reception of Aristotle in Reformed theology.49 Examining Reformed uses
of Aristotle can be potentially a daunting task. By way of introduction, it is
sufficient simply to state that Aristotle loomed large in almost every locus of
Post-Reformation scholastic theology.50 This practice grew seamlessly out of
medieval debates over the relationship between philosophy and theology. The
45
Theophilus Gale, The Court of the Gentiles, Or, a Discourse Touching the Original of Human Literature,
Both Philologie and Philosophie, from the Scriptures & Jewish Church. in Order to a Demonstration Of,
I. the Perfection of Gods Word, and Church-Light, Ii. the Imperfection of Natures Light, and Mischief of
Vain Philosophie, Iii. the Right Use of Human Learning, and Specially, Sound Philosophie Part I. Part
I (Oxon: Printed by H. Hall, for Tho. Gilbert, 1672).
46
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 167–99.
47
Robert Strivens, Philip Doddridge and the Shaping of Evangelical Dissent, Ashgate Studies in
Evangelicalism (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2015), 68–79.
48
Aza Goudriaan, “Theology and Philosophy,” in A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, ed. H. J.
Selderhuis (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 27–64.
49
Asselt et al., Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism, 26–42.
50
For a similar approach to tracing Aristotelian ideas through the loci of Aquinas’s Summa see,
Matthew Levering and Gilles Emery, eds., Aristotle in Aquinas’ Theology (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2018). In his contribution to this volume, Corey Barnes notes, “Aristotle’s philosophical
advancements become subtle tools for unexpected tasks” (188). The result is that Aquinas primarily
borrowed “conceptual tools” from Aristotle to make sacra doctrina intellibible (204). These
observations largely match the patterns found in Reformed orthodox authors as well.
reception of Aristotle caused a great stir in medieval theology that continued

for centuries.51 Coming into the Reformation period, Luther had a decidedly
negative view of Aristotle and he wanted to purge him from the university.52
However, in his efforts to develop a Protestant university curriculum,
Melanchthon both used Aristotle and lectured on his works.53 He went so far
as to argue that scholarship was not possible without Aristotle.54 While the
degree of criticism leveled against Aristotle varied among authors throughout
the periods of Reformed orthodoxy, his language and categories were always
present and were often explicit topics of discussion.
To understand how Reformed scholastics used Aristotle’s philosophical
categories, however, it is important to distinguish between appropriating ideas
as Aristotle taught and understood them and employing his categories and
distinctions to present a coherent theological system that assigned its own
peculiar meaning to Aristotelian terms.55 In most cases, Aristotle furnished
Reformed scholasticism with categories and distinctions more thoroughly
than it did philosophical ideas.56
A few examples of ways in which Reformed authors used Aristotelian
categories while repurposing them to express theological assertions will help
readers gain a better grasp of the kinds of issues that they need to look for.
Virtually all Protestant scholastics used Aristotelian categories, such as fourfold
causation, or of describing things in terms of their substance and accidents.57
Aristotle divided causes into material causes, formal causes, efficient causes,
and final causes. The material cause is the matter of a thing. The formal cause
is what makes the material to be the thing that it is by taking the form that it
does. The efficient cause produces the intended effects. The final cause is the
end or goal of the thing.58 Reformed authors regarded these distinctions as
51
52
53
54
Asselt et al., Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism, 89.
55
Carl R. Trueman, The Claims of Truth: John Owen’s Trinitarian Theology (Carlisle, Cumbria:
Paternoster Press, 1998), 34–44.
56
Muller, PRRD, 1:375.
57
Chapter 8, below, includes Reformed uses of Aristotle’s categories of habits and acts as well.
58
useful in breaking down an action or event into its constituent parts. In his
comments on Eph. 1:5, 8, John Calvin used fourfold causation to expound
Paul’s teaching about the nature of salvation in Christ. In his view, Jesus
Christ was the material cause of salvation, preaching was its formal cause, the
efficient cause was the good pleasure of God, and the final cause was the praise
of the glory of God’s grace.59 Using similar constructions, Reformed authors
developed the instrumental cause as a subordinate subdivision of the efficient
cause.60 In this way, the Leiden Synopsis could affirm that the causa efficiens
principalis of effectual calling was God the Father, in the Son, by the Spirit,
while the causa instrumentalis ordinaria of this call was the ministry of the word
through preaching.61 While this appears, on the surface, to contradict Calvin’s
list of causes in salvation, it is important to note that Calvin was addressing
questions surrounding predestination and its effects on the entire scheme of
redemption, while the Leiden Synopsis was concerned with effectually calling
more narrowly. In any case, it should be clear that fourfold causation was a
tool that Reformed scholastics used to divide various actions into their parts
to explain doctrine and examine it from diverse perspectives.
Reformed scholasticism modified and used Aristotle’s distinction of
things into their substances and accidents as well. Such categories became
notoriously relevant in relation to the doctrine of the Sacraments.62 Medieval
theology gradually used this distinction to explain how the Eucharist could
be transubstantiated into Christ’s physical body and blood while retaining
the external properties of bread and wine. Substance referred to what a
thing was in itself, while accidents referred to the external properties of that
thing. Ordinarily, accidental properties could change while they would retain
qualities that reflected the essence of a thing. The doctrine of transubstantiation
resulted in a division between the substance and accidents of the elements in
59
John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979), 21:200. He lists preaching as
the formal cause of salvation on page 203 in connection to verse 8.
60
61
A. Walaeus et al., Synopsis Purioris Theologiae = Synopsis of a Purer Theology, ed. Roelf T. te Velde,
trans. Riemer A. Faber, vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 210, 212.
62
As noted, for example, by Scott R.. Swain, “Lutheran and Reformed Sacramental Theology:
Seventeenth-Nineteenth Centuries,” in The Oxford Handbook of Sacramental Theology, ed. Hans
Boersma and Matthew Levering (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 364–5.
the sacrament, since they became Christ’s body and blood without taking on
the external properties of flesh and blood. While Reformed authors treated this
construction as fictional and illogical, they continued to use the distinction
between substance and accidents elsewhere. Thus, when Turretin described
the nature of the resurrected bodies of believers, he argued that the substance
of their bodies would remain the same while their accidental properties
changed.63
Other examples of using Aristotelian categories abound and they will
arise frequently as students wade through Reformed scholastic primary
sources. Thus Polanus appealed to Aristotle’s seven modes of composition
to deny that any of them applied to God, who is a most simple being.64
Thomas Manton (1620–77) connected the wills of the flesh and of the
mind to Aristotle’s distinction between the upper and lower soul.65 He also
appealed to Aristotle to discuss the nature of natural desire.66 In addition,
Richard Muller has detailed a complex debate over Aristotle’s treatment of
determinism in relation to Reformed thought on the divine and human
wills.67 Risking generalization, Reformed authors were more likely to cite
Aristotle positively on matters related to physics and faculty psychology than
they were on issues related directly to theological content or metaphysics.
When they did appeal to Aristotle in relation to theological content, such as
in relation to his definition of theology as a discourse concerning the gods,
then they tended to correct, or even jettison, his ideas in light of the teaching
of Scripture.68 The predominance of Aristotelian language and categories
63
Giger, 3 vols. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992), 3:617–21; 12.9.1-11.
64
Amandus Polanus, Syntagma Theologiae Christianae Ab Amando Polano a Polansdorf: Juxta Leges
Ordinis Methodici Conformatum, Atque in Libros Decem Digestum Jamque Demum in Unum
Volumen Compactum, Novissime Emendatum (Hanoviae, 1610), 63, 907–8.
65
Thomas Manton, A Practical Commentary, or an Exposition with Notes, on the Epistle of James
(London, 1652), 106.
66
Manton, James, 111.
67
Muller, Divine Will and Human Choice.
68
Andreas Hyperius, De Theologo, Seu, De Ratione Studii Theologici Libri IV (Basileae, 1559), 24–7;
John Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, Sive, De Natura, Ortu, Progressu, Et Studio Veræ Theologiæ,
Libri Sex Quibus Etiam Origines & Processus Veri & Falsi Cultus Religiosi, Casus & Instaurationes
Ecclesiæ Illustiores Ab Ipsis Rerum Primordiis, Enarrantur (Oxoniæ, 1661), 2–5; Johann Heinrich
Heidegger, Corpus Theologiae Christianae, vol. 1, 2 vols. (Tiguri, 1732), 1:2; Francis Turretin,
Institutio Theologiae Elencticae, vol. 1, 3 vols. (Geneva, 1679), 1.1.1-8.
in Reformed thought is partly what has led some authors to make a sharp
division between Reformation and post-Reformation theology, which I will
address more fully in a subsequent chapter. This cursory evaluation at least
shows a measure of continuity between Reformed and medieval scholasticism
on this score.
In addition to Aristotelianism, Ramism became one of the most prevailing
philosophical influences in Reformed scholastic theology.69 Named after
Peter Ramus (1515–72), Ramism promoted a method of bifurcation,
which Ramus proposed as an alternative to Aristotelian logic as outlined in
Aristotle’s Organon.70 Ramus’s basic premise was that logic was not a creation
of philosophy, but that it was part of God’s created order.71 He attempted to
distance Aristotle’s use of logic from the earlier models of thinkers like Socrates
and Plato. He identified what he regarded as a bifurcative structure in Aristotle’s
predecessors, in which logical questions fell into two general categories. He
thus blamed Aristotle for muddying the waters through the complexity of the
distinctions that he introduced.72 This echoes some of the humanist concerns
with Aristotle as noted above. In Ramus’s estimation, bifurcation promoted
simplicity and clarity.73 His general aim was to simplify logic and rhetoric
for introductory students. Not everyone was satisfied with his approach and
it is somewhat hard to define as a whole, since clearly Aristotelian elements
remain in his thought. Nonetheless, some Reformed authors, such as Giovanni
Diodati (1576–1649) identified themselves as following Ramus as opposed to
Aristotle.74
In practice, the general features of Ramism became one tool among many
in expressing the Reformed system of theology. In terms of dividing the
69
For a wide-ranging series of essays on the nature and influences of Ramism, see Steven J. Reid and
Emma Annette Wilson, eds., Ramus, Pedagogy and the Liberal Arts: Ramism in Britain and the Wider
World (London: Routledge, 2011).
70
Petrus Ramus, Scholae Dialecticae sive Animadversionum in Organum Aristotelis Libri Viginti
(Frankfurt, 1594).
71
Ramus, Scholae Dialecticae sive Animadversionum in Organum Aristotelis Libri Viginti, 4.
72
Ramus, Scholae Dialecticae sive Animadversionum in Organum Aristotelis Libri Viginti, 12.
73
Muller, PRRD, 1:62.
74
Emidio Campi, “Giovanni Diodati (1576–1649), Translator of the Bible into Italian,” in From Zwingli
to Amyraut: Exploring the Growth of European Reformed Traditions, ed. Jon Balserak and Jim West,
vol. 43, Reformed Historical Theology (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017), 107.
structure of the entire system of theology into two parts, and then those parts
themselves into two more, the overarching structure of systems that followed
a Ramist model was simple and clear enough. Ramus himself divided the
system of doctrine along the lines of what man should believe concerning God
and what duty God requires of man. He then subdivided his system along
the lines of the Apostle’s Creed, the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer,
and the Sacraments.75 However, among Ramist theologians, when every
topic admitted a subtopic, followed by lengthy chains of further subtopics,
then Ramism broke down as a means of simplifying logical procedures and
of organizing ideas. One has only to peruse William Perkins’s Ramist chart
in his treatment of election and reprobation to see both the simplicity and
complexity of following this model.
Readers should remember as well that even thorough Ramists, such as
Polanus, did not follow a Ramist model of breaking everything into pairs
to the exclusion of using Aristotelian categories and subdivisions as well.
Though Ramus may have intended his logical method as a simplification
of and correction to Aristotle’s Organon, the reality was that Reformed
scholastics tended to move fluidly back and forth between Ramist divisions
and Aristotelian methods. Thus, Polanus could list eleven axioms to explain
the character of God’s essential properties and he could bifurcate almost
ad nauseum in treating divine infinitude.76 Yet we have seen already his
use of Aristotelian categories of composition in treating divine simplicity.
Dividing the system of theology along Ramist lines into two parts, namely,
what man is to believe concerning God and the duty that God requires of
man, explains the structure of the theological systems of Polanus, Wollebius,
Maccovius,77 the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and others,
though not all systems followed this pattern. It is notable, for instance,
that the Westminster Confession of Faith did not do so. When used, this
bifurcation of structure ordinarily retained the early church model of the
Apostles Creed, the Ten Commandments, and the Lord’s Prayer, while
75
Petrus Ramus, Commentariorum De Religione Christiana, Libri, Quatuor, Eivsdem Vita a Theophilo
Banosio Descripta (Francofvrti, 1576).
76
Polanus, Syntagma Theologiae Christianae, 901–3 and 924–7, respectively.
77
Johannes Maccovius, Loci Communes Theologici (Amstelodami, 1658), 3.
adding a section on word and sacraments either before or after the Lord’s
Prayer to complete its bifurcative structure. This highlights the ability of
Reformed scholastic authors to incorporate various strands of philosophical
ideas into their theological systems. The general rule was that they often
chose what they regarded to be the best tools needed to address the issue
at hand. Reformed authors, such as Voetius, later revisited and questioned
Ramus’s rejection of metaphysics.78
Medieval, Renaissance, and philosophical movements hovered
around and permeated the development of post-Reformation scholastic
theology.79 Other philosophical movements, such as Cartesianism, became
pressing objects of debate in certain regions in which Reformed theology
flourished.80 This section has merely provided a sample of some of the most
common and prevalent philosophical considerations in Reformed thought.
It is important to be aware of this fact to study Reformed scholasticism
well.
Related descriptive terms
At this juncture, it is important to focus more narrowly on the meaning of some

key terms related to Reformed scholasticism. Research and writing can lack
precision and clarity when students fail to address the fundamental meaning
of such terms. Yet defining historical terminology can be notoriously difficult.
For example, a cottage industry has arisen over the meaning of the term
“Puritan,” with entire monographs devoted to the subject.81 To understand and
to study Reformed scholasticism it is necessary to have working definitions, or
at least general descriptions, of terms such as “orthodoxy,” “scholasticism,” and
“Reformed.”
78
Goudriaan, “Theology and Philosophy,” 43.
79
Muller, PRRD, 1:36.
80
A chapter below will touch on Cartesianism in relation to the nature of Reformed scholasticism in
the Netherlands.
81
For an up-to-date survey of the quest to define “Puritanism,” for example, see Randall J. Pederson,
Unity in Diversity: English Puritans and the Puritan Reformation, 1603–1689, vol. 68, Brill Studies in
Church History (Leiden: Brill, 2014).
Orthodoxy
Out of the three terms singled out in this section, orthodoxy is the easiest
to define. Orthodoxy is about setting boundaries by way of statement and
definition, especially in relation to confessional documents. Van Asselt wrote
that orthodoxy “has a normative meaning in which a close connection is
established with the teaching of the church throughout the ages.”82 Orthodoxy
itself refers to right teaching.83 Orthodox teaching was also meant to be
normative teaching. The parameters of orthodoxy were often delineated by
creeds, confessions, and the decrees of councils. This began with appeals to
early church councils. For example, when Amandus Polanus, in his Syntagma,
shifted from his treatment of the doctrine of Scripture to theology proper, the
first thing that he did was to cite in full a list of historic creeds, beginning
with the Apostle’s Creed, to set catholic parameters for his exposition of the
doctrine of God.84 As noted above, post-Reformation confessional theology
arose in Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, Socinian, Arminian, and other
contexts. Such confessional statements set the boundaries for what each of
these communions regarded to be right teaching. While Roman Catholicism
took shape during this period largely through the decrees of the Council of
Trent and Lutheranism did so through their Book of Concord, Reformed
churches had many confessional statements. As we will see below, there were
common threads that united the contents of these confessions. However, the
proliferation of confessional statements makes defining Reformed orthodoxy
a more difficult task than its counterparts in other communions.85
Scholasticism
Scholasticism is easier to describe than it is to define. As with Puritanism,

Leinsle notes that some authors have rejected the term entirely due to the
82
83
Asselt et al., Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism, 5–6.
84
Polanus, Syntagma Theologiae Christianae, 843–55.
85
The best introduction to the kind of diversity that existed within the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy
remains Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones, eds., Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological
Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism, vol. 17, Reformed Historical
difficulties involved in defining it.86 However, this problem faces the use of every
descriptive term used in historical research, including common designations
such as “medieval” and “modernity.”87 Yet such terms reflect the recognition
of broad historical shifts on the part of scholars. Sometimes this means that
historians must be content with general descriptions over precise definitions.
According to Leinsle, two obvious features stand out with regard to
scholasticism. The first is that scholasticism refers to the method employed for
teaching theology in the schools.88 Yet something is lacking in this description,
both due to the fact that monastic schools taught theology without necessarily
using scholastic methods in doing so and because many well-known scholastic
theologians (e.g., Anselm, Abelard, etc.) were monks as well.89 Therefore, while
scholasticism is not less than a theology of the schools, it must be a bit more as
well for the term to retain any meaning. The second feature of scholasticism,
according to Leinsle, is its attempt to teach theology using tools drawn from
the scientific methods current at the time.90 With respect to high medieval and
post-Reformation theology, this primarily meant using Aristotelian categories
and distinctions. Scholasticism was thus a method of teaching theology in the
schools in light of current scientific methods.
This general outline of scholastic method still needs supplementation to
approach a concrete description. We can move in this direction by noting that
three “D’s” marked late medieval as well as post-Reformation scholasticism.
These are disputations, declamations, and distinctions. Perhaps the idea of
quaestio draws a circle around all three terms, since the scholastic method
aimed to answer questions in an academic context.91 Disputations, in general,
represented a method of teaching students to defend their views against
86
87
Brill is working currently toward publishing a volume on the relationship between John Owen and
modernity.
88
89
Gerhard Muller, “Luther’s Transformation of Medieval Thought: Discontinuity and Continuity,” in
The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology, 105–14 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).;
Volker Leppin, “Luther’s Transformation of Medieval Thought: Continuity and Discontinuity,” in
The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology, 115–24 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).;
90
91
Willem J. van Asselt and Eef Dekker, “Introduction,” in Reformation and Scholasticism: An Ecumenical
Enterprise, ed. Willem J. van Asselt and Eef Dekker (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 25.
opposing positions. A professor might pose a question in response to which

the student was expected to define what the question should include and what
it should not. The student would then state his position as well as that of his
opponent(s). After refuting his opponent point by point, the student would
then include a positive defense of his position from Scripture and the church
fathers. Francis Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology exemplifies this method
in every section of the work.92 Many Reformed professors of theology wrote
theological systems based on the cycle of disputations used at the university
in which they taught. Some of these works were extensive, such as Voetius’s
five massive volumes of disputations.93 Others appeared in summary fashion
consisting of roughly five-page chapters, such as those of Franciscus Gomarus
(1563–1641) and Johannes Cloppenburg (1592–1652).94
Declamations represented a more positive approach to presenting
theological topics than disputations. Students were expected under this
method to present their positions from the ground up rather than merely by
responding to opposing viewpoints. This did not exclude refuting errors, but
the starting point and the focus of the declamation differed from that of the
disputation. While disputations were largely exercises in logic, declamations
often tested student’s rhetorical skills.95 If Francis Turretin exemplified
the disputation model clearly, then Johannes Heidegger illustrates a fuller
expression of the Reformed system, including declamatory style.96 Johannes
92
Turretin, Institutio Theologiae Elencticae; Leonard Ryssen, Francisci Turretini Ss. Theologiae
Doctoris Et Professoris Compendium Theologiae Didactico-Elencticae, Ex Theologorum Nostrorum
Institutionibus Theologicis Auctum Et Illustratum: Ut Praeter Explicationes Theticas Et Problematicas
in Controversiis Verum Statum Proponatur, “Prôton Pseudos” Detegatur, Vera Sententia Confirmetur,
Argumentis Ad Paucas Classes Revocatis, Praecipuae Adversariorum Exceptiones Et Objectiones
Diluantur, Calumniae Etiam Adversarioru, Abstergantur (Amsterdam, 1695).
93
Gijsbert Voetius, Selectarum Disputationum Theologicarum Pars Prima (Quinta. Accedunt Dissertatio
Epistolica De Termino Vitæ. Exercitatio De Prognosticis Cometarum. Antehac Seorsim Editæ), 5 vols.
(Ultrajecti, 1648).
94
Franciscus Gomarus, Syntagma Disputationum Theologicarum, in Academia Lugduno-Batava
Quarto Repetitarum (Roterodami: Impensis Ioannis Leonardi a Berewout bibliopolae, 1615);
Johannes Cloppenburg, Exercitationes Super Locos Communes Theologicos (Franekerae, 1653).
95
Theodore G. van Raalte, “Francois Lambert D’Avignon (C.a. 1487–1530): Early Ecclesial Reform and
Training for the Ministry at Marburg,” in Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism: Studies
in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of a Theological Tradition, vol. 170, Studies in the
History of Christian Traditions (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 88.
96
Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology; Heidegger, Corpus Theologiae Christianae. Turretin referred
to Heidegger, who taught in Zurich, as, “our particular friend.” Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic
Theology, 3:198; 18.20.18.
Markcius’s (1665–1731) full theological system generally followed the

declamation pattern as well, while including elements of the disputation style
in its elenctic sections.97
Finally, distinctions were a preeminent mark of scholastic theology in any
century.98 Johannes Maccovius (1588–1664) illustrates this point well in that
he wrote an entire book introducing his students to the terms and distinctions
that they would need to know to study theology in the university.99 Richard
Muller observes that Reformed scholastics employed four kinds of logical
distinctions: distinctio realis, distinctio formalis, distinctio rationis ratiocinatae,
and distinctio rationis ratiocinans.100 Sometimes they added the distinctio
modalis, which belonged to “the vocabulary of trinitarian theology” to describe
modes of subsistence in the Godhead.101 Scholasticism was a method of teaching
that aimed at precision and clarity through precision. Methodologically,
this stood in contrast, for example, to mystical strands of theology, which
inherently defied definition and struggled for adequate description. Though
readers should remember that some of the most prominent scholastics, such
as Thomas Aquinas, had a mystical bent as well. Though scholastic theology
aimed to explain what it did explain clearly and effectively, scholastic authors
never claimed that all things were explicable. They also denied that creatures
could comprehend God, even though they could apprehend him.102
While it is well known that many early Protestants used the term “scholastic”
in a derogatory way to refer to perceived medieval and Roman Catholic abuses
in theology, positive uses of scholastic method grew up with the Reformation
97
Johannes Marckius, Compendium Theologiae Christianae Didactico Elencticum: Immixtis
Problematibus Plurimis & Quaestionibus Recentioribus Adauctum (Amstelodami, 1696).
98
In his conclusion to his entry on distinctio, Muller gives the following example: “In Protestasnt
scholastic theology, as in the theology of the medieval scholastics, the question of distinctions is
of paramount importance in the discussion of the divine attributes (attributa divina). How can
theology make predications of an essentially simple being whose attributes are essentially identical?
Most of the Protestant scholastics reject the formal distinction and accept the distinctio rationis
ratiocinatae.” Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally
from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1985), 94.
99
The Latin and English text of this work is available in Johannes Maccovius, Scholastic Discourse:
Johannes Maccovius (1588–1644) on Theological and Philosophical Distinctions and Rules (Apeldoorn:
Instituut voor Reformatieonderzoek, 2009).
100
Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, 93–4.
101
Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, 94.
102
Polanus, Syntagma Theologiae Christianae, 879.
itself. Protestant scholasticism generally, and Reformed scholasticism

particularly, reflected a well-developed and self-conscious scientific method of
teaching theology in the schools during this time period.103
Reformed
The last term requiring description, if not definition, is “Reformed.” As van Asselt
observes, Reformed is a better historical epithet to describe this time period
than Calvinism is.104 The primary reason for this assertion is that Calvinism
can give the wrong impression by implying that Calvin is the bar by which to
judge Reformed orthodoxy. Reformed, as a descriptive term, reflects the diverse
confessional statements produced within the Reformed communion. While
orthodoxy can apply to other confessional tradition, such as Lutheranism, using
the term Reformed indicates what kind of orthodoxy is in view.
This raises the basic question of the parameters of the core content that
defines historic Reformed orthodoxy. Some authors, such as Apawo Phiri,
detach the term Reformed from the bounds of confessional orthodoxy. The
result is that she can write positively of “Reformed” churches in modern
Africa incorporating practices, such as witchcraft and ancestor worship.105
The mission of such “Reformed” churches is, in her view, to oppose things
like “homophobia,” “sexism,” and “ecumenism.”106 Regardless of the merits or
demerits of opposing views on such issues, this approach voids “Reformed” of
any useful meaning historically. By contrast, in the same volume Eberard Busch
comes closer to helping readers understand the general content of historic
Reformed theology. He provides five characteristics the Reformed confession,
all of which stem from the doctrine of God and of Scripture. These are the
“fundamental directing power” of Scripture, the “seminal importance” of the
covenant, a “unique interpretation” of the law and the gospel, predestination,
and “appreciation of church order.”107 (240–4). These characteristics developed
103
104
105
Paul T. Nimmo and David A. F. Fergusson, The Cambridge Companion to Reformed Theology (New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 289.
106
Nimmo and Fergusson, The Cambridge Companion to Reformed Theology, 286.
107
Nimmo and Fergusson, The Cambridge Companion to Reformed Theology, 240–4.
out of the doctrines of God and of Scripture as the two principia of historic
Reformed theology, which entailed the absolute supremacy of the triune God
and the absolute authority and sufficiency of Scripture for doctrine and life.
Narrowing things in this way provides a general idea of what “Reformed”
means in the present book in light of some of the key doctrinal emphases that
tied the Reformed confessions together.
Conclusion
The above material enables us to draw a few conclusions regarding common

periodization, parallel historical movements, and relevant terminology used
in the study of Reformed scholasticism. First, while periodization is inherently
imprecise, it is necessary to build an adequate historical narrative. The lines
between the medieval, Reformation, and post-Reformation periods, as well as
those drawn between early, high, and late orthodoxy must remain dotted rather
than solid ones. These are useful guidelines rather than hard and fast rules.
Second, Reformed scholasticism was not hermetically sealed off from medieval
theology and methods, from Renaissance humanism, and from philosophical
trends. It grew alongside of these movements and it drew heavily from elements of
all of them. Third, terms like “orthodoxy,” “scholastic,” and “Reformed” are useful
and, even necessary, to understand the extent and limits of studying Reformed
scholasticism. As Paul Dominiak wrote, “Protestant or Reformed ‘orthodoxy’ and
‘scholasticism’ do not exactly coincide. Rather, Protestant or Reformed orthodoxy
relates to its scholasticism as a whole to a part: the latter is contained within the
former but does not exhaust it; and the latter primarily describes a particular
theological method, while the former circumscribes broader Protestant or
Reformed theological content.”108 In short, Reformed orthodoxy is wider topic
than Reformed scholasticism. Scholasticism is a smaller circle within the larger
circle of orthodoxy. Reformed orthodoxy refers to the historic teachings of the
Reformed faith while Reformed scholasticism refers to the method of teaching
Reformed content, primarily in the universities and for the training of ministers.
108
vol. 40, Reformed Historical Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017), 40:120.
For these reasons, the chapters that follow introduce the nature and
character of Reformed scholasticism in light of the fact that it was a theology
of the schools. While studies related to this field should include the content of
Reformed theology, they should also focus more narrowly on the relationship
between Reformed orthodoxy and its scientific forms of expression and
dissemination among students.
7
A Theology of the Schools
As the preceding chapter noted, while scholasticism was more than a

theology of the schools, it was not less than a theology of the schools. Dolph
te Velde summarizes Reformed scholasticism as being characterized by
confessionalization, the polemic defense of doctrine, and the need to train
ministers of the Word in the schools.1 The first of these categories corresponds
to orthodoxy. The second one overlaps with it. The final characteristic goes
beyond it. Due to its decidedly scholastic focus, the need to train ministers
in the schools receives primary attention here. The basic point of this chapter
is that to study Reformed scholasticism, it is necessary to understand in
the context of university and theological education as it developed in post-
Reformation Reformed contexts.
This material treats this theme in light of medieval precedents, the rise and
development of early Protestant universities, and continuities with seventeenth-
century universities, using the Netherlands and England as representative
examples. This chapter aims to provide students with enough background to
gain a feel for the shape of scholastic theology to help them grasp the basic
ideas surrounding its nature as a theology of the schools. Subsequent chapters
will expand the character of scholastic theology in light of how disputations,
declamations, and distinctions affected the manner and content of teaching
theology in the schools.
1
Dolph te Velde, “Reformed Theology and Scholasticism,” in Cambridge Companion to Reformed
Theology, ed. Paul T. Nimmo and David A. F. Ferguson (New York: Cambridge University Press,
2016), 216–17.
The rise and development of medieval theological education
Rather than presenting a detailed analysis of medieval theological education,

it is helpful to narrow this treatment by addressing some of the primary areas
of distinction and overlap between scholastic and monastic theology in the
medieval period. This will illustrate the basic continuities between medieval
and Protestant scholasticism in relation to the development of the university
system.
The scholastic model of theology
Universities arose in the medieval period around the twelfth century.2 It was
common during this period for universities to exchange both professors and
students frequently.3 This set a precedent for the international and catholic
character of theological education that continued into post-Reformation
practices. Medieval universities often reflected a back and forth pull between
lecturing on Lombard’s Senetentiae and the Bible itself. Most medieval
theologians agreed that both were necessary tasks. The question was which
procedure took priority. Thomas Aquinas illustrates the push back against
getting too far away from the text of Scripture by lecturing exclusively on
Lombard, which some schools had begun to do. This led to a proliferation of
lectures on books of the Bible on his part.4 Readers should keep in mind as well
that the original intent of the Senetentiae was to serve as a theological guide
to the interpretation of Scripture.5 Virtually all medieval theologians believed
that such a guide was necessary to pursue this task well. The question was
how far removed one should be allowed to get from the direct interpretation
of the Bible itself. Regardless of which direction particular theologians leaned
in relation to this question, scholastic tools, which included the ability to
2
Charles Homer Haskins, The Rise of the Universities (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1969), 7.
3
Catholic University of America Press, 2010), 184.
4
Leinsle, Scholastic Theology, 127; Philip McCosker and Denys Turner, eds., The Cambridge
Companion to the Summa Theologiae, Cambridge Companions to Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2016), 60–1.
5
Press, 2012), 147.
A Theology of the Schools 123
make clear distinctions, to engage in disputations, and to present theological

declamations, became standard features of scholastic theology in the university
context.6
The monastic model of theology
The scholastic model developed in the universities was not, however, the only
model for doing and teaching theology. Theology flourished among various
monastic orders as well. Due to the fact that many prominent theologians,
such as Bonaventure and Aquinas, belonged to monastic orders while writing
and teaching scholastic theology, it is easier to state that a monastic model of
theology existed than it is to distinguish it fully and clearly from scholastic
alternatives. In general, monastic orders stressed Christian practice and
labor for the good of others, with a mystical bent, than did the theology of
the schools. Bonaventure’s Franciscan order was well known for stressing the
practical side of Christianity. Bernard of Clairvaux’s Cistercian order carried
forward a decidedly mystical bent in theology as well. Aquinas, who was a
Dominican, placed a higher emphasis than either of these other orders did
on training and producing preachers. However, readers should remember the
mystical bent in his theology as well, which ultimately resulted in leaving his
magnum opus, the Summa, unfinished.7 His career in particular illustrates the
substantial overlap between employing scholastic method while retaining the
goals that grew from his commitment to his monastic order.8
6
Van Raalte defines declamations and disputations as follows, “The declamation was a rhetorical
exercise rooted in ancient Greece and Rome wherein the student was assigned a concrete situation,
usually asked to impersonate a character, and then expected to argue either pro or con using all
the rhetorical moves he knew. The disputatio was a more structured exercise of logic wherein the
opponens presented a thesis against which either of two things happened. In the older Greek model,
his fellow student respondents could raise objections, attempting to force him to commit an error
in logic; in the newer, early modern model, a respondent posited an anti-thesis and the two argued
against each other.” Theodore G. van Raalte, “Francois Lambert D’Avignon (C.a. 1487–1530): Early
Ecclesial Reform and Training for the Ministry at Marburg,” in Church and School in Early Modern
Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of a Theological Tradition, vol.
170, Studies in the History of Christian Traditions (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 88.
7
McCosker and Turner, Companion to the Summa, 33.
8
Voetius made a similar observation in light of the practice of lecturing on Lombard’s Senetentia both
in universities and in monastic schools. Gijsbert Voetius, Selectarum Disputationum Theologicarum
Pars Prima (Quinta. Accedunt Dissertatio Epistolica De Termino Vitæ. Exercitatio De Prognosticis
Cometarum. Antehac Seorsim Editæ), 5 vols. (Ultrajecti, 1648), 13.
In a Protestant context, Martin Luther illustrates well the influences of the

monastic model on theology. Key medieval monastic theologians not only
influenced Luther’s theological enterprise, but he retained a distinctively
mystical bent in his theology.9 This often resulted in his relative comfort
with unresolved theological tensions that Reformed scholastics could not
ultimately live with. His refusal to resolve the issue of how the Lord’s Supper
could simultaneously be bread and wine and the physical body and blood of
Christ was a notorious example. Luther was also less willing to attempt to
resolve perceived tensions between divine sovereignty and human freedom
in his debates over free will with Erasmus than Reformed authors, such as
Calvin, were.10 We will see below that this affected his approach to scholastic
theology and the focus of the curriculum in relation to establishing Protestant
universities. As noted in a previous chapter, Herman Selderhuis concludes
appropriately that, to his dying day, Luther remained a monk at heart.11
Richard Muller observes that Luther was “the only Reformer” who challenged
the idea of teaching and preaching a system or in a systematic way.12 While this
does not mitigate the influences of monastic models of theology on Protestant
scholasticism more broadly, it does show how particular monastic influences
affected a man like Luther.
Conclusion
These cursory observations highlight the fact that Protestant universities did
not develop in a vacuum. Elements of scholastic and monastic theological
education were incorporated into Protestant universities as professors adapted
these models to suit their own purposes. Stress on the Bible as well as on the
system of theology was designed to help students interpret the Bible better. This
9
Volker Leppin, “Luther’s Roots in Monastic-Mystical Piety,” in The Oxford Handbook of Martin
Luther’s Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 49–61.
10
Kolb notes a similar contrast between Luther and post-Reformation Lutheran theology on the
question of the relationship between divine sovereignty, contingency, and the existence of evil.
Robert Kolb, “God, Creation, and Providence in Early Modern Lutheranism,” in The Oxford
Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 1600–1800, ed. Ulrich L. Lehner, Richard A. Muller, and A. G.
Roeber (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 308.
11
Herman Selderhuis, Martin Luther: A Spiritual Biography (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 312–13.
12
pattern carried over into Reformed practice. For example, Calvin’s policy of
directing readers of his Institutes to his biblical commentaries and of directing
those reading the commentaries back to the Institutes sounds very similar
to Aquinas’s way of doing things. There was virtually no aspect of Protestant
approaches to establishing universities, or reforming existing ones, that did
not draw critically from medieval precedents.
The early development of Protestant universities
Protestant universities arose quickly during the time of the Reformation. The
University of Wittenberg (founded in 1502) became one of the first in this
line, and, according to Leinsle, it was one of the only institutions at which
humanist learning was incorporated immediately into scholastic medieval
models of teaching.13 Most Protestant universities, including this one, became
distinctively Protestant only gradually. Protestant professors found themselves
faced with the dilemma of searching for educational models that were adequate
to teach Protestant theology in the schools. This process went through gradual
shifts that resulted in a gradual reincorporation of scholastic method into
Protestant theological education. The work of Luther and Melanchthon on the
Lutheran side and that of Calvin, Beza, and Lambert Daneau on the Reformed
side illustrate how this process took shape in general.
Luther and Melanchthon
Martin Luther was notoriously anti-scholastic, at least by reputation through

vigorous protest.14 One of his earliest works was a Disputation against Scholastic
Theology.15 Among other things, he envisioned abolishing Aristotle from the
university curriculum entirely. He also aimed to emphasize lectures on the
13
14
For the remnants of scholastic, and even Aristotelian ideas in Luther’s thought, see D. V. N. Bagchi,
“Sic et Non: Luther and Scholasticism,” in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment, ed. R.
Scott Clark and Carl R. Trueman (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006).
15
Cornelis Augustijn, “Wittenberga Contra Scholasticos,” in Reformation and Scholasticism: An
Ecumenical Enterprise, ed. Willem J. van Asselt and Eef Dekker (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic,
2001), 66.
Bible to the exclusion of commenting on Lombard’s Senetentiae. This again

reflects a concern that raised its head continually throughout the high medieval
period, though with a decidedly radical bent in the direction of commenting
on the Bible. However, Fred Hall observes that in refuting scholastic theology,
Luther used “scholastic methods and Scripture” to do it.16 Luther appeared to
be more opposed to the perceived content of scholastic theology than he was
to its academic form.17
If, in Luther’s view, Aristotle had to be kicked out of the university doors,
then this required significant changes in the propaedeutic studies to theology.18
Luther reflected humanistic influences in this regard by stressing the need to
develop skill in Greek and Hebrew as well as Latin. However, he was largely
ambivalent about the nature and necessity of other studies that would prepare
students for lecturing on the Bible and formulating theology.
Melanchthon found himself dissatisfied with this procedure. He agreed with
Luther on the need to gain facility in the biblical languages and he even became
the first professor of Greek at the University of Wittenberg. Yet as he addressed
the task of organizing the university curriculum, he was confronted with the
need to teach subjects such as logic and rhetoric as well as to furnish students
with the vocabulary and conceptual distinctions that they needed to teach and
to defend a distinctively Lutheran theology. As Timothy Wengert observed,
his curriculum played a vital role in the development of churches that were
distinctively Lutheran.19 Under Melanchthon’s influence, the university required
that visiting lectures and doctoral candidates adhere strictly to the Book of
16
Fred P. Hall, “Influences in Luther’s Reforms,” in Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism:
Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of a Theological Tradition, ed. Jordan J.
Ballor, David S. Sytsma, and Jason Zuidema, vol. 170, Studies in the History of Christian Traditions
17
Cornelis Augustijn, “Wittenberga Contra Scholasticos,” in Reformation and Scholasticism: An
Ecumenical Enterprise, ed. Willem J. van Asselt and Eef Dekker (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic,
2001), 68.
18
Robert Kolb, “Pastoral Education the Wittenberg Way,” in Church and School in Early Modern
Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of a Theological Tradition, ed.
Jordan J. Ballor, David S. Sytsma, and Jason Zuidema, vol. 170, Studies in the History of Christian
Traditions (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 67–79.
19
Timothy J. Wengert, “Philip Melanchthon and Wittenberg’s Reform of the Theological Curriculum,”
in Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the
Maturation of a Theological Tradition, ed. Jordan J. Ballor, David S. Sytsma, and Jason Zuidema, vol.
170, Studies in the History of Christian Traditions (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 18.
Concord.20 He thus illustrates a combination of scholasticism and orthodoxy.

With some irony, given his close relationship with Luther, Melanchthon found
partial answers in his search for education tools in Aristotle. He not only
incorporated standard Aristotelian concepts into Protestant theology. He also
began lecturing on some of Aristotle’s key works to develop the tools that he
needed to teach and for students to learn. In this respect, Melanchthon proved
to be more conservative than Luther in his approach to theological education.
The result was a higher level of continuity with medieval scholastic methods
of teaching while retaining a distinctively Protestant flare in the content of his
teaching. Melanchthon showed just as much contempt for scholasticism as
Luther did, but he was committed to being a man of letters and to applying
the best up-to-date scientific methods to the study of theology.21 As noted in
a previous chapter, adapting current scientific methods to suit of the needs of
university education was one of the hallmark features of scholastic method.
In this regard, Melanchthon served as an early model for other Protestant
university professors, in terms both of method and of content.22
Calvin, Beza, and Daneau
In terms of theological education, Calvin’s name stood out. The vital role that
he played in forming the Geneva Academy is well known, as is his international
influence on the Reformed world through training refugees, such as John
Knox. By the time of Calvin’s death, however, the curriculum and methods
used at the Academy were still in the early stages of development.
Theodore Beza was Calvin’s hand-picked successor in Geneva. As a later
chapter will demonstrate, if some scholars treat Calvin’s theology as the
Garden of Eden, then they often regard Beza as marking the Fall, especially
in light of his De Praedestionis Doctrina.23 This alleged fall occurred through
transforming Calvin’s pristine Reformed theology through reincorporating
20
Wengert, “Philip Melanchthon and Wittenberg’s Reform of the Theological Curriculum,” 22.
21
Augustijn, “Wittenberga Contra Scholasticos,” 77.
22
Wengert, “Philip Melanchthon and Wittenberg’s Reform of the Theological Curriculum,” 33.
23
Raymond A. Blacketer, “The Man in the Black Hat: Theodore Beza and Reorientation of Early
Reformed Historiography,” in Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism: Studies in Honor
of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of a Theological Tradition, ed. Jordan J. Ballor, David S.
Sytsma, and Jason Zuidema, vol. 170, Studies in the History of Christian Traditions (Leiden: Brill,
scholastic methods and distinctions into Reformed thought. The reality was
that Beza furthered Calvin’s aim to interpret and apply Scripture, even if he
necessarily presented his theology in a more scholastic form that was suited to
theological education.24 The final product of Beza’s theological enterprise was
ultimately pastoral in tone as well.25
If, under the Calvin versus the Calvinists thesis, John Calvin is the Garden
of Eden and Theodore Beza is the fall, then Lambert Daneau virtually
becomes Satan incarnate. The problems with this assessment remain to be
seen in a subsequent chapter. Together with a fresh generation of professors,
Daneau represents the process of reincorporating scholastic methodology
into Reformed theological education in Geneva.26 The best example of this
lies in the fact that he wrote a commentary on the first book of Lombard’s
Senetentia.27 Daneau was the only Protestant author who attempted to follow
this practice that we know of. However, the practice of commenting critically
on a key theological text as an aid to interpreting the Bible continued in
Reformed practice, as exemplified by Ryssen’s condensed summary of Turretin
and de Moor’s extensive commentary on Marckius.28 Moreover, lectures on the
2013), 231. He notes, “The narrative in which Theodore Beza plays the villain who ruined Reformed
theology has been current since at least the mid-seventeenth century, when Moise Amyraut sought
to identify his own speculative schema of decrees with the primordial thought of Calvin and to
drive a wedge between the teachings of Calvin and Beza to further his own theological agenda, thus
presaging the historiographic mythology that pitted ‘Calvin Against the Calvinists.’”
24
Blacketer, “The Man in the Black Hat,” 236–7.
25
Blacketer, “The Man in the Black Hat,” 238.
26
Irena Backus, “G. W. Leibniz and Protestant Scholasticism in the Years 1698–1704,” in Church and
School in Early Modern Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of a
Theological Tradition, ed. Jordan J. Ballor, David S. Sytsma, and Jason Zuidema, vol. 170, Studies in
the History of Christian Traditions (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 679–96.
27
Lambert Daneau, In Petri Lombardi Episcopi Parisiensis (qui Magister Sententiarum Appellatur)
Librum Primum Sententiarum, Qui Est De Vero Deo, Essentiâ Quidem Uno: Personis Autem Trino:
Lamberti Danaei Commentarius Triplex. Unus, Ad Marginem Ipsius Libri, in Quo Singularum
Distinctionum Artificium Breviter Explicatur. Alter, Ubi Locorum À Lombardo Prolatorum Accurata
Collatio Facta Est. Tertius, Qui Censuram Doctrinae, Methodique Lombardi, Tum Ex Ipso Dei Verbo,
Tum Ex Veris Sententiarum Scribendarum Praeceptis Habet (Genevae: Apud Eustathium Vignon,
1580).
28
Leonard Ryssen, Francisci Turretini Ss. Theologiae Doctoris Et Professoris Compendium Theologiae
Didactico-Elencticae, Ex Theologorum Nostrorum Institutionibus Theologicis Auctum Et Illustratum:
Ut Praeter Explicationes Theticas Et Problematicas in Controversiis Verum Statum Proponatur, “Prôton
Pseudos” Detegatur, Vera Sententia Confirmetur, Argumentis Ad Paucas Classes Revocatis, Praecipuae
Adversariorum Exceptiones Et Objectiones Diluantur, Calumniae Etiam Adversarioru, Abstergantur
(Amsterdam, 1695); Bernardinus de Moor, Continuous Commentary on Johannes Marckius’
Didactico-Elenctic Comendium of Christian Theology, trans. Stephen Dilday, vol. 1 (Culpeper, VA: L
& G Reformation Translation Center, 2014).
Senetentia continued in Protestant universities, even among authors, such as

Melanchthon, who wrote their own theological systems.
Parallel to continuing the practice of commenting on the Senetentia, post-
Reformation Roman Catholic theologians began to produce commentaries
on Aquinas’s Summa. The most famous of these was that of Thommaso de
vio Cajetan (1469–1534), who set the standard for such commentaries for
centuries.29 The point is that Protestants and Roman Catholics alike continued
to legitimize this carry over from medieval scholasticism, though with widely
differing goals in doing so.
The examples of Calvin, Beza, and Daneau’s work in the Genevan Academy
reflects similar trends that existed related to theological education in Lutheran
and Reformed contexts. As Protestants faced the challenge of developing their
own educational institutions, they increasingly drew critically from medieval
scholastic practices. This does not so much mark a departure from an early
pristine Protestant theology as it does a conservative bent that tried to avoid
reinventing the educational wheel. As demonstrated through Melanchthon’s
work as an educator, this shift coincided with the development of Protestant
prolegomena to theology and the revision of the propaedeutic studies to
theology. Aristotle was wounded in the process, but he did not die. He was
resurrected and transformed into the image of the Protestant professors who
re-created him. The same was true with regard to medieval scholastic method
more broadly.
The development of universities under Reformed orthodoxy
Two examples from the high orthodox period show the mature development
of Reformed scholasticism as a theology of the schools. While many examples
could serve this purpose, the universities in the Netherlands and England
in the seventeenth century were particularly noteworthy and influential
on an international scale.30 I will use the universities in the Netherlands to
29
McCosker and Turner, Companion to the Summa, 323.
30
Switzerland stands out in this regard as well. I have omitted the Swiss educational influence here
because I treat it below in relation to describing the regional character of Reformed scholasticism in
relation to various countries.
illustrate scholastic characteristics related to theological education, including

disputations and distinctions. The examples drawn from England will
demonstrate the character of this educational process from the standpoint of
university practices and preparatory studies to theology.
The Netherlands
Several Reformed universities arose in the Netherlands in the sixteenth and

seventeenth centuries. Rather than arising within established medieval schools,
many of them arose locally what in what were know as illustrious schools. As
some of these schools did well, they gained government recognition and were
constituted as universities. Two institutions that stand out in this regard were
the Universities of Leiden and Utrecht.31
The University of Leiden arose in 1575. Leiden offered degree programs
in fields beyond the realm of theology, but its theology department produced
both famous and infamous professors. The purpose here is not to provide
readers with a history of the university, but to show the scholastic character of
education present in it. The rise of the controversy over Remonstrant theology
enables us to do this simply and clearly.32 The controversy arose through
Jacob Arminius presenting a disputation on free well that was of questionable
orthodoxy.33 However, it was not until after his death that the controversy
came into full bloom with the publication of a remonstrance by some of the
Leiden faculty. The remonstrance rejected standard Reformed teachings on
the extent of Christ’s atonement, the nature of human depravity resulting from
Adam’s Fall, the absolute sovereign freedom of God in election to salvation, the
irresistible nature of the Spirit’s call to saving faith, and the final perseverance
of the saints to glory. After Leiden effectively fired the Remonstrants among
31
For the development of Reformed schools in Leiden, Dort, Franeker, Herderwijk, Middelburg,
Gronigen, Deventer, Amsterdam, Utrecht, Hertogenbosch, Breda, Nijmegen, Rotterdam, and
Maastricht, see Antonie Vos, “Reformed Orthodoxy in The Netherlands,” in A Companion to
Reformed Orthodoxy, ed. H. J. Selderhuis, vol. 40, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition
(Leiden: Brill, 2013), 126–40. Most of these schools disbanded in the nineteenth century.
32
For an extensive treatment of Remonstrant theology, particularly in relation to Leiden in the
early-seventeenth-century Netherlands, see Martin Mulsow and Jan Rohls, eds., Socinianism and
Arminianism: Antitrinitarians, Calvinists, and Cultural Exchange in Seventeenth-Century Europe
(Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill, 2005).
33
Vos, “The Netherlands,” 167–8.
its faculty, the new faculty of theology collaborated to write the Synopsis
Purioris Theologiae.34 The purpose of this volume was to show to the rest of
the Reformed world that Leiden had retained its Reformed character through
the controversy.
The relevant point in relation to the scholastic character of the university
curriculum is that the Synopsis followed the regular disputation cycle that was
current at the time.35 This largely mirrored the medieval method of holding
theological disputations throughout the course of theological training. The four
authors of the Synopsis presented most of the system of Reformed thought through
each professor developing the disputation assigned to him. The recent critical
text and translation of this work, therefore, offers students vital insights into the
scholastic character of high orthodox Reformed theology in the Netherlands. It
is not only an ideal introduction to the character of scholastic disputations, but it
is virtually indispensable to those pursuing research in this field.
Utrecht University was established in 1636 during the high orthodox
period. Unlike Leiden, Utrecht arose exclusively for the study of theology.36
It is somewhat ironic, therefore, that the university voted recently to disband
its theology department.37 Gisbertus Voetius was the most famous professor
at this institution. He was trained in theology at Leiden and taught theology
at Utrecht beginning in 1634. Voetius gained international acclaim in the
Reformed world for the depth of his theological precision as well as through
his influence on many students. He taught well-known men, such as Johannes
Hoornbeeck, Herman Witsius, and Wilhelmus a Brakel. The last of these men
wrote a four-volume theological handbook in Dutch that bridged the gap
between scholastic and popular theology by simplifying the Reformed system
for the average believer.38 Voetius’s five volumes of disputations show the use
of precise scholastic distinctions at their height.
34
trans. Riemer A. Faber (Leiden: Brill, 2015).
35
Walaeus et al., Synopsis Purioris Theologiae.
36
37
Maarten Wisse, Marcel Sarot, and Willemien Otten, eds., Scholasticism Reformed: Essays in Honour
of Willem J. Van Asselt, vol. 14, Studies in Theology and Religion (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 5.
38
(Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012).
The use of disputations and of maintaining clearly and precise scholastic

distinctions did not result in a sterile theology at Utrecht, Leiden, or in other
Reformed Universities. This is illustrated the incident in which Utrecht invited
the English divine, William Ames, to teach at the university establishing
a new chair of practical theology. The invitation was rescinded when the
English monarch opposed the appointment. However, it soon became clear
that the Utrecht theology faculty wanted Ames rather than a chair of practical
theology, which was merely a convenient place to put him at the university.
With Ames off the table, they eventually argued that they did not need a chair
of practical theology on the grounds that every area of practice and pastoral
ministry was encompassed already in the theological curriculum.39 This fact
is obvious on the surface of Voetius’s lengthy and precise Latin disputations
as well as from the fact that Peter van Mastricht wrote his Theoretico-Practica
Theologiae primarily to help students learn how to be better preachers.40 This
was not an exclusively Dutch focus either.41 Other continental authors, such
as Amandus Polanus, included usus at the end of nearly every section in their
theological systems and even Francis Turretin connected his selection of topics
to promoting genuine piety.42 Even in a scholastic university context, practica
marked the educational process and, in many cases, served as its primary
purpose.43 Franciscus Junius captured this point well in the first published
Reformed prolegomena by noting that our theology, which is a dim reflection
39
For a sketch of this historical narrative, see Donald Sinnema, “The Attempt to Establish a Chair in
Practical Theology at Leiden University (1618–1626),” in A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, ed.
H. J. Selderhuis, vol. 40, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 415–42.
40
Voetius, Selectarum Disputationum Theologicarum Pars Prima (Quinta. Accedunt Dissertatio
Epistolica De Termino Vitæ. Exercitatio De Prognosticis Cometarum. Antehac Seorsim Editæ); Peter
van Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia. Qua, Per Singula Capita Theologica, Pars Exegetica,
Dogmatica, Elenchtica & Practica, Perpetua Successione Conjugantur (Trajecti ad Rhenum, and
Amstelodami: Sumptibus Societatis, 1715).
41
For example, Junius made a similar point about connecting true theology to the aims of preaching.
See, Franciscus Junius, A Treatise on True Theology: With the Life of Franciscus Junius, trans. David
C. Noe (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014), 233.
42
Volumen Compactum, Novissime Emendatum (Hanoviae, 1610); Francis Turretin, Institutes of
Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison, trans. George Musgrave Giger, 3 vols. (Phillipsburg, NJ:
P&R Publishing, 1992), 1:xli.
43
Johannes Hoornbeeck, Theologia Practica Pars 1, 2 vols. (Francofurti and Lipsiae: Bailliar, 1698).
of God’s self-knowledge, transforms us into his image through theology by the

power of the Holy Spirit.44
Seventeenth-century England
England reveals the nature of the scholastic development of Reformed

theological education from another angle. It illustrates what were relatively
standard practices in pursuing the study of theology in the context of a relatively
unique historical setting. In contrast to places such as the Netherlands, English
scholastic theology developed in the context of two well-established medieval
schools. Reformed scholars either studied at Cambridge or Oxford, both of
which were founded hundreds of years earlier in the high medieval period.
Cambridge took pride of place in the sixteenth century.45 Internationally
respected teachers, such as Peter Martyr Vermigli, influenced a generation of
Reformed scholastics there.46 This school produced such well-known early
orthodox ministers as William Perkins, Richard Sibbes, and William Ames.47
In the seventeenth century, the focus shifted somewhat to Oxford, at least in
terms of the flourishing of the so-called Puritan branch of Reformed theology,
which receives closer attention in a subsequent chapter.
Seventeenth-century Oxford is an important example of the nature of what
scholastic theological education looked like, since it retained a scholastic
model of theological training before, during, and after the English Civil War
(1642–51). In the 1630s, the university was subject to the reforms introduced by
William Laud (1573–1645). Many English Protestants believed that Laud was
moving the English church in a decisively Roman Catholic direction. Following
the Civil War, the Puritan party, under the leadership of Oliver Cromwell took
over. This gave opportunity to some, such as the Quakers, to raise their voices
against the legitimacy of theological education itself. Yet John Owen became
dean of Christ Church and vice chancellor the university during this time as
44
Junius, A Treatise on True Theology, 218–19.
45
Paul R. Schaefer, The Spiritual Brotherhood: Cambridge Puritans and the Nature of Christian Piety
(Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011), 19–35.
46
Schaefer, Spiritual Brotherhood, 63.
47
Schaefer, Spiritual Brotherhood, 15.
well.48 Westminster divine Edward Reynolds (1599–1676) both preceded and

succeeded Owen in his post at Christ Church, serving in that capacity under
two kings with little Puritan sympathies. The committed Episcopalian bishop
Thomas Barlow (1608–91), who was Owen’s tutor in theology in the 1630s,
spanned the entire period in his tenure at the university.49 Such radical and
complex historical shifts during this period make the relative stability of the
nature and methods of theological studies at Oxford a significant example of
Reformed scholasticism in this regard.
The atmosphere of theological studies at seventeenth-century Oxford
exemplifies a standard scholastic model that largely reflected its continental
counterparts at the time pursuing a Bachelor of Divinity course were expected
first to complete a BA, which transitioned into an MA. Ordinarily, they began
these studies between the ages of twelve and sixteen years of age, though
Thomas Goodwin was regarded as being on the young side of the spectrum
when he enrolled at Cambridge at age twelve.50 A Bachelor of Divinity
degree ordinarily took seven years to complete.51 Students were expected to
be fluent in Greek and Latin by this stage and students caught speaking any
language other than these on campus were subject to disciplinary measures.
They also aimed at proficiency in Hebrew. All instruction occurred in Latin
and regular disputations were woven into the curriculum. Tutors expected
students to read broadly from lists such as that provided by Barlow.52 Reading
48
Peter Toon, God’s Statesman: The Life and Work of John Owen, Pastor, Educator, Theologian (Exeter:
Paternoster Press, 1971), 50–1.
49
Richard A. Muller, “Thomas Barlow on the Liabilities of the ‘New Philosophy’: Perceptions of a
Rebellious Ancilla in the Era of Protestant Orthodoxy,” in Scholasticism Reformed: Essays in Honour
of Willem J. Van Asselt, ed. Maarten Wisse, Marcel Sarot, and Willemien Otten, vol. 14, Studies in
Theology and Religion (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 180.
50
Ruprecht, 2010), 13:38–40.
51
Van Dixhoorn asserts that “only three percent of the clergy had a bachelor of divinity degree.”
However, this is difficult to substantiate and he does not cite any sources to do so. Chad B. Van
Dixhoorn, God’s Ambassadors: The Westminster Assembly and the Reformation of the English Pulpit,
1643–1653, Studies on the Westminster Assembly (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books,
2017), 120.
52
Thomas Barlow, The Genuine Remains of That Learned Prelate Dr. Thomas Barlow, Late Lord Bishop
of Lincoln Containing Divers Discourses Theological, Philosophical, Historical, &c., in Letters to Several
Persons of Honour and Quality: To Which Is Added the Resolution of Many Abstruse Points: As Also
Directions to a Young Divine for His Study of Divinity, and Choice of Books, &c., with Great Variety
of Other Subjects (London, 1693); Gisbertus Voetius, Exercitia Et Bibliotheca Studiosi Theologiæ
(Rheno-Trajecti: Apud Wilhelmum Strick, 1644).
included linguistic studies, biblical commentaries, and theological works from

Reformed, Lutheran, Roman Catholic, early church, and medieval sources,
as well as works related to various heretical movements. The disputations
occurred at least quarterly and every student engaged in a final disputation
to complete his degree. This shows the juxtaposition of humanist linguistic
studies with medieval scholastic methods that would be familiar to students
in other countries as well. As demonstrated above with regard to the rise
of early Reformed universities, this model represented the adaptation of
medieval scholastic precedents to suit the needs of teaching a theology that
was distinctively Reformed in content.
It is noteworthy that very few Latin theological systems appeared in
seventeenth-century England.53 Reading lists drew heavily from continental
resources, cementing the ties between English universities and their Reformed
counterparts on the continent. The implication was that the scholastic method
ensured that all universities were speaking the same language, were employing
the same theological distinctions, and were following the same methods
of instruction. Coupled with the examples drawn from the Netherlands,
students can begin to get a feel for the nature and development of Reformed
scholasticism under high orthodoxy.
Conclusions: The character of the theology of the schools
This brief introduction to the nature of Reformed scholasticism as a theology

of the schools leads to several general conclusions that will help students
pursue research in this field.
First, the character of scholastic and popular theology differed widely while
remaining integrally related. Most scholastic theology was written in Latin
while popular theology appeared in vernacular languages. Some authors, such
as John Owen, wrote both scholastic and popular theology in the vernacular.
This explains the different character of works such as Christologia and
Meditations on the Glory of Christ. It is also a reason why comparing authors
53
A rare example would be John Prideaux, Fasciulus Controversarium Theologicarum (London, 1649).
such as Calvin and Turretin creates problems.54 They wrote different genres,
for different audiences, in different centuries.
Second, scholastic theology informed popular theology. The example of
Calvin’s appeal to Aristotelian fourfold causation to explain Ephesians 1:5,
8, cited in a previous chapter, illustrates this well. Likewise Thomas Manton,
in his sermons on John 17, could indicate that while God does not pray, he
who was God prayed.55 Scholastic Christological distinctions enabled him to
explain in his preaching why both of Christ’s natures in one person facilitated
and shaped the character of his intercession for believers. Wilhelmus a Brakel’s
theological system, noted above, displays at length how this transition from
scholastic to popular theology occurred in relation to the entire system of
Reformed thought. This shows that while Reformed ministers during this
period were trained using a scholastic methods and distinctions, they were
expected to be able to “translate” scholastic ideas into material that could
benefit the church more broadly. The fact that many institutions, such as
Utrecht, produced notable pastors as well as professors further reinforces this
feature of Reformed scholasticism. This also strengthens the point made in an
earlier chapter that studying Reformed scholasticism should include popular
modes of expressing theology, such as sermons.
Third, scholastic theology both adopted and transformed medieval
precedents in light of Reformed prolegomena. It does not overstate the case
to say that Reformed prolegomena gave birth to a self-conscious Reformed
scholastic method. This process involved critical engagements with the
Christian tradition as well as distinctively Reformed developments. Junius’s
prolegomena exemplifies this point well, as he provided other Reformed
authors with ideas, terms, and a structure that would enable them to learn and
to teach Reformed orthodox theology in the universities.
Fourth, scholastic theology developed, in part, under polemic responses
to post-Trent Roman Catholic theology. Van Asselt points to the example of
Polanus’s responses on the doctrine of Scripture to Robert Bellarmine to show
the nature of how this worked.56 Polanus wrote nearly 700 pages on the doctrine
54
Crossway, 2010), 120–9.
55
Thomas Manton, The Complete Works (London: Nisbet, 1870), 10:114.
56
Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011), 109.
of Scripture in his Syntagma while refuting Robert Bellarmine’s treatise on

Scripture point by point. This shows that the incorporation of scholastic
method into Reformed theological education was not merely abstraction nor
did it arise in a historical vacuum. Polemic theology, ironically, increased the
catholicity of Reformed theological method since both Protestants and Roman
Catholics employed scholastic terms and structure in their cross-confessional
skirmishes.
Finally, this last point leads this author to reiterate Muller’s simple observation
that the development of Reformed scholasticism was necessary for the survival
and propagation of the Reformed system of theology.57 Post-Reformation
Reformed theology and scholasticism were not synonyms. Scholasticism
referred decisively to an educational model. As such, scholasticism was a tool,
or rather a set of tools, that was most immediately relevant for the purpose
of training Reformed pastors. It provided theological students with the
vocabulary, distinctions, and skills that they needed to defend the Reformed
faith. It also brought Reformed theology into conversation with the entire
catholic Christian tradition, which is the subject of the next chapter.
57
138
8
A Theology in Conversation with

the Entire Catholic Tradition
Catholicity may not be a word that some associate with Reformed orthodoxy.
For better or for worse, the Protestant Reformation resulted in the institutional
fragmentation of European Christianity.1 However, reintroducing scholastic
methodology into theological education effectively brought Reformed
orthodoxy into engagement with the entire Christian tradition, including
the early church fathers, the medieval period, and contemporary cross-
confessional theology. To study Reformed scholasticism, therefore, it is
necessary to understand that scholastic method enabled Reformed authors to
interact critically with the entire catholic Christian tradition.
To grasp this point adequately, it is important to make a few brief
observations about the Reformed orthodox doctrine of Scripture, followed
by two examples of the shaping of the Reformed system of theology from
Amandus Polanus and Francis Turretin. The chapter then expands this picture
of Reformed catholicity by giving instances in which Reformed scholasticism
appropriated medieval and contemporary theological ideas. These examples
demonstrate that Reformed scholastic authors prioritized engagement with the
church fathers through the lenses of Scripture while framing their theological
systems in light of medieval models.
Sola scriptura not solo scriptura
The Reformed doctrine of sola scirptura is easily misunderstood. As Henk

van den Belt has argued, the so-called five solas themselves were a later
1
Matthew Levering, Was the Reformation a Mistake?: Why Catholic Doctrine Is Not Unbiblical (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 15.
construction used to describe an earlier Reformed theology. They likely arose

in the nineteenth century and became popular in the early twentieth century.2
This does not mean that these slogans lack value as descriptive categories of
the content of classic Reformed theology.3 Their origin after the fact, however,
should caution readers against importing later concepts into earlier Reformed
theology. To understand the nature of Reformed scholasticism as a movement
involving critical engagement with the catholic Christian tradition, some
points of clarification are in order with regard to the Reformed doctrine of
Scripture.
It is a popular misconception that in Reformed theology, sola scriptura
meant what a recent author calls, solo scriptura.4 The mistake lies in the idea
that Scripture was not only the supreme authority in matters of faith and life,
but that it was the only authority to which Reformed authors appealed. Yet
Polanus, for example, taught plainly that while the Scriptures alone possessed
magisterial authority, the church retained ministerial authority to aid believers
in interpreting Scripture.5 The Westminster Confession of Faith reflects this
emphasis when it asserts that the Holy Scriptures in their original languages
are the supreme judge and final appeal in all religious controversies.6 The Holy
Spirit speaking in the Scriptures with magisterial authority did not preclude
the ministerial authority of the church and what we would now call historical
theology as aids to understanding what Scripture teaches and requires.
The material below demonstrates that Reformed scholastic authors
operated on the conviction that Christ spoke to the church throughout
the ages. Although they by no means treated the tradition of the church as
infallible, they believed that it was vital to demonstrate that the church
expressed the seed thoughts of Reformed teaching at various points over the
2
Henk van den Belt, “The Problematic Character of Sola Scriptura,” in Sola Scriptura: Biblical and
Theological Perspectives on Scripture, Authority, and Hermeneutics, ed. Hans Burger, Arnold Huijgen,
and Eric Peels, vol. 32, Studies in Reformed Theology (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 39–40.
3
This is in partial contrast to van den Belt’s argument that sola scriptura is inadequate or misleading
as a descriptive term.
4
Michael Allen and Scott R. Swain, Reformed Catholicity: The Promise of Retrieval for Theology and
Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2015), 85.
5
Volumen Compactum, Novissime Emendatum (Hanoviae, 1610), 671–82.
6
WCF 1.10.
Conversation with Entire Catholic Tradition 141
centuries. From a Reformed vantage point, while the tradition of the church
admitted amendments and corrections, theology should never operate in a
vacuum or present its teachings from Scripture de novo.7 To borrow a different
expression, this is why Matthew Barrett reminds his readers that sola scriptura
did not mean nuda scriptura for Reformed scholastic authors.8 The latter was
a Socinian rather than a Reformed practice.9 The way in which Polanus and
Turretin developed their theological systems reflects such convictions.10
Test case one: Amandus Polanus
Amandus Polanus enables us to see how a Reformed scholastic author

developed a system of theology by engaging with the catholic Christian
tradition. His critical use of the church fathers highlights his adoption of
catholic content in his theology while the form of his system shows medieval
and contemporary appropriations, including organizing the entire Syntagma
around a twofold Ramist division between faith and duty. This implied
division between form and content, however, is not absolute. Polanus loosely
retained the early church form of structuring of theology around the Apostle’s
Creed, the Ten Commandments, and the Lord’s Prayer. In addition, he freely
borrowed the content and ideas of medieval authors, most openly and notably
Thomas Aquinas. The process through which he developed his theology in the
course of his academic career illustrates some standard catholic characteristics
7
For a thorough example of this way of thinking in early modern England, see Jean-Louis Quantin,
The Church of England and Christian Antiquity: The Construction of a Confessional Identity in the
17th Century (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).
8
Matthew Barrett, God’s Word Alone: The Authority of Scripture, The 5 Solas (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 2016), 55.
9
Sarah Mortimer, Reason and Religion in the English Revolution: The Challenge of Socinianism
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010); John Coffey and Paul C. H. Lim, eds., The
Cambridge Companion to Puritanism (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press,
2008).
10
Van den Belt argues against making a distinction between sola scriptura and nuda scriptura, since
both expressions appear in early modern Reformed primary sources. Van den Belt, “The Problematic
Character of Sola Scriptura,” 55–6. However, this distinction, as explained above, illustrates clearly
the ideas connected to Reformed views on the interpretation of Scripture. This author believes that
Van den Belt’s arguments for dropping sola scriptura as a useful term are overstated, since conveying
ideas clearly are more important in historical writing than particular terms. This author believes that
dropping such language at this stage in history would result in greater confusion rather than greater
clarity in expressing Reformed views on these subjects.
of Reformed scholasticism, which are interlaced with the influences of

Renaissance humanism.11 Characteristics of both affected the nature of
Reformed theological education. For the sake of simplicity, this treatment
draws heavily from Bynung Soo Han’s description of the making of Polanus’s
theology.12
Many Reformed systematic theologians began their careers as biblical
commentators.13 Polanus began his career with what would become his widely
accepted commentary on Malachi.14 Such biblical commentaries related to
the broader system of theology in various ways. Authors such as Bucer on
Romans and James Durham (1622–58) on Revelation included various loci
communes interspersed among their comments on biblical books.15 Calvin
disliked this procedure due to unwieldy length and chose to write his Institutes
as a companion to the commentaries.16 In either case, loci communes grew
out of sedes doctrinae found in biblical books. Sedes doctrinae were key texts
of Scripture that served as seats of doctrinal discussions on various topics.17
Loci communes were common places of theological discussion that arose from
key passages of Scripture that were often arranged into broader theological
systems.18 Calvin followed Melanchthon in this regard by modeling his
11
Willem J. van Asselt and Eef Dekker, “Introduction,” in Reformation and Scholasticism: An Ecumenical
Enterprise, ed. Willem J. van Asselt and Eef Dekker (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 25.
12
Byung Soo Han, Symphonia Catholica: The Merger of Patristic and Contemporary Sources in the
Theological Method of Amandus Polanus (1561–1610), vol. 30, Reformed Historical Theology
13
Concerning Mastricht, Neele wrote, “Mastricht ws a professor of Hebrew for fifteen years, prior
to his appointment as professor of theology at Utrecht University. Such a vocational path was not
uncommon for the post-Reformation orthodox theologians.” Adriaan C. Neele, Petrus Van Mastricht
(1630–1706) Reformed Orthodoxy: Method and Piety (Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill, 2009), 162.
14
Han, Symphonia Catholica, 128.
15
Martin Bucer, Metaphrasis Et Enarratio in Epist. D. Pauli Apostoli Ad Romanos, in Quibus Singulatim
Apostoli Omnia, Cum Argumenta, Tum Sententiae & Verba, Ad Autoritatem Divinae Scripturae,
Fidemque Ecclesiae Catholicae Tam Priscae Qum̉ Praesentis, Religios ̈ac Paul ̣fusius Excutiuntur
(Basileae, 1562); James Durham, A Commentarie Upon the Book of the Revelation Wherein the Text
Is Explained, the Series of the Several Prophecies Contained in That Book, Deduced the Periods and
Succession of Times At, or About Which, These Prophecies Began to Be and Those That Are yet to Be
Fulfilled: Together with Some Practical Observations, and Several Digressions: Delivered in Several
Lectures (London, 1658).
16
John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1979), 19:xxiii–xxiv
(Epistle Dedicatory).
17
Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from
Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1985), 278.
18
Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, 179.
theological system after the book of Romans.19 Burnett and Neele note that
Reformed systematicians also ordinarily served as professors of Hebrew before
teaching the system of theology at the university level.20 Han observed the
same pattern in Polanus.21 This reinforces the influence of the Renaissance
emphasis on linguistic studies on Reformed scholastic theology.
Prior to writing his full-scale Sytntagma Christianae Theologiae, Polanus
wrote his Symphonia Catholica. This book presented the Reformed system of
doctrine in light of the writings of the church fathers, which was reminiscent
of medieval works, including Lombard’s famous Senetentiae. Polanus wrote
Symphonia Catholica to bolster Reformed doctrine in conversation with the
early church. This material was not the foundation of his theology in the way
that Scripture was, but it played a vital role in establishing the catholicity of
Reformed thought. Other notable Reformed authors, such as John Daille
(1594–1670) and Andreas Rivetus (1572–1651), wrote their own treatments
of the theology of the church fathers with the same end in view.22 In Polanus’s
case, this method marked a second step toward his final project, which was to
present the entire system of Reformed theology that drew explicitly from these
earlier projects.
Accordingly, Polanus’s commentaries and his work on the Fathers provided
the framework for his massive Syntagma Christianae Theologiae. Throughout
this work, he drew frequently from his Symphonia Catholica, especially in
connection to his doctrine of Scripture.23 The Syntagma represents the mature
development of a Reformed scholastic professor’s career, drawing from
biblical exegesis and interacting heavily with the early church tradition. It is
marked by disputations (most notably with Cardinal Robert Bellarmine), by
19
Richard A. Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition,
Oxford Studies in Historical Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 125–7.
20
Stephen G. Burnett, From Christian Hebraism to Jewish Studies: Johannes Buxtorf (1564–1629) and
Hebrew Learning in the Seventeenth Century, Studies in the History of Christian Thought (Leiden:
Brill, 1996); Adriaan C. Neele, Petrus Van Mastricht (1630–1706) Reformed Orthodoxy: Method and
Piety (Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill, 2009), 162.
21
Han, Symphonia Catholica, 51.
22
Jean Daille, De Usu Patrum Ad Ea Definienda Religionis Capita, Quae Sunt Hodie Controversa,
Libri Duo (Geneva, 1656); Jean Daille, A Treatise on the Right Use of the Fathers in the Decision of
Controversies Existing at This Day in Religion, trans. Thomas Smith (London: H. G. Bohn, 1843);
Andreas Rivetus, Criticus Sacrus, Praefixus Est Tractatus de Patrum Authoritate (Geneva, 1626).
23
Polanus, Syntagma Theologiae Christianae, e.g., 442, 556, 620, 672, 673, 702, 740, 742, 765, 825.
an overall declamatory style, and by scholastic distinctions filtered through

the then recent introduction of Ramistic bifurcation. His dependence on the
church fathers in his interpretation of Scripture is pervasive, and his method
and content draw explicitly from medieval authors throughout. His heavy
interaction with Aquinas in his theology proper evidences this fact.24 Early
in his treatment of theology proper, he even rejected Scotus’s nominalism by
name in favor of a Thomistic approach to the relationship between the divine
nature and attributes.25 All of this illustrates the historic catholic breadth of
Reformed scholastic theology in the early seventeenth century at least.
Polanus shows that Reformed scholastic theology was holistic, drawing
from exegesis, historical and contemporary theology, polemic treatments,
and all with an aim toward praxis. Most of his chapters from the doctrine
of God onwards included four areas of uses structured around Paul’s four
uses of Scripture outlined in 2 Timothy 3:16–17. Polanus followed the typical
pattern of doing Reformed theology in the schools by aiming to be biblically
grounded, historically sensitive, practically oriented, and scholastically
structured. Interaction with the catholic Christian tradition was woven into
the system of theology.
Test case two: Francis Turretin
Francis Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology narrows the focus of the catholic
character of Reformed scholasticism by putting the disputation method under
a microscope for readers to examine. While Mastricht divided each chapter
of his system into exegetical, systematic, elenctic, and practical segments,
Turretin singled out the elenctic task of theology exclusively. His theological
work incorporated the same catholic elements present in Polanus’s Syntagma
filtered more narrowly through polemical engagement with opponents. While
readers can consult virtually any section of his Institutes to illustrate this point,
his treatment of the resurrection of the dead illustrates well how he integrated
24
Polanus, Syntagma Theologiae Christianae. For representative citations of Aquinas, both positive and
negative, in his theology proper, see 864, 800, 902, 1000, 1003, and many other places.
25
an evaluation of early and medieval church theology with his interpretation

of Scripture on the subject. Understanding the structure and method of this
disputation is more important for our purposes than explaining its contents
in detail.
Turretin followed the standard disputation model in presenting his topics
and questions. His treatment of the resurrection of the dead began with a
statement of what the question was not and what it was, a statement of his
own position and its opposite, followed by a refutation of arguments against
his position, and concluded a positive case for his teaching.26 Negatively, he
argued that the resurrection did not merely mean deliverance from calamities,
that the general resurrection would encompass all people, and yet that not
all would be raised in union with Christ though all would be raised by his
power.27 Positively, the topic of the resurrection of the dead should stress the
resurrection of believers, which includes the spiritual resurrection of their
minds in this world through regeneration. However, properly speaking, the
universal resurrection of mankind and the transformation of flesh and blood
by assuming immortality is the focus of this disputation.28
Reflecting the fact that praxis was one of the primary goals of Reformed
scholastic theology, even in a polemic context, Turretin concluded his
introduction to his topic and his statement of the question with three assertions.
First, the resurrection is the peculiar treasure of the Christian church and
proper to the Christian faith. Second, the resurrection is the highest object
of the Christian’s hope. As such, it is “the foundation of all solid consolation.”
Third, the resurrection should be “a most effectual stimulus to piety.”29 These
observations emphasize the fact that scholasticism and piety were neither
contradictory terms nor alternative approaches to theology. Even in a system
such as Turretin’s, in which the practical elements of theology received little
attention by design, they were never far from view.
Turretin then proceeded to defend his position regarding the resurrection
of the dead primarily from Scripture in opposition to false teaching. He first
26
Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3:562–8.
27
Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3:562.
28
29
outlined the gradual unfolding of this doctrine from the Old Testament,
expounding numerous passages of Scripture in the chronological order in
which they appear in the history of biblical revelation.30 As readers should
expect, this chronological treatment of the doctrine of resurrection culminated
in the New Testament, in which the doctrine found its clearest expression.31
This chronological method of defending the doctrine of the resurrection
had the advantage, in Turretin’s view, of showing the unified message of the
entire Bible on this subject as well as the gradual way that God disclosed it
throughout redemptive history. The remainder of the disputation is comprised
of additional theological arguments deduced from Scripture, especially with
reference to the believer’s union with Christ.32
This last section falls under what Turretin ordinarily called, in English
translation at least, “sources of explanation.” It is here that he cited and interacted
with the church fathers most heavily. The stress of his treatment clearly fell on the
development of doctrine from Scripture. The form of his material reflected the
disputation model, which was current with some variations in both medieval
and in Protestant universities. His interaction with writers from the early and
medieval church shows once again the fact that critical interaction with the
entire catholic Christian tradition featured prominent in Reformed theology.
Coupled with the pattern of Polanus’s career and theological output, we gain
a clearer view of the nature of the catholic character of Reformed scholastic
theology. In practice, Reformed scholastics assigned magisterial authority to
Scripture without neglecting the ministerial authority of the church as a God-
given interpreter of Scripture. Such practices grew out of Reformed theological
principles and they illustrate the nature, at least in part, of the kind of catholicity
that marked the Reformed scholastic period.
Medieval and contemporary appropriations
Reformed interaction with the entire catholic Christian tradition did not stop
with the early church. The material above has already shown in passing that
30
31
32
Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 565–8.
Reformed authors drew constructively from medieval authors. This issue

requires a bit more elaboration to appreciate it fully. In addition to using
medieval ideas, Reformed authors did not shy away from incorporating ideas
into their theological systems drawn from across confessional bounds.
Its self-conscious appropriation of medieval theology gave Reformed
scholasticism a greater catholic quality than some earlier Reformed thought.
In a previous chapter, I noted that the scholastics were often the proverbial
“bad guys” in the writings of early Reformers, such as Calvin and, especially,
Luther. To circumvent the problem of potential discontinuities between
Reformation and post-Reformation thought, it has become commonplace for
many scholars in this field to note that scholasticism referred to a particular
method of teaching rather than to theological content.33 This observation is
both valid in general and important to keep in view. However, we should not
press scholasticism as a method to the extent that this excludes appropriating
theological ideas. Scholars have abundantly identified features of scholastic
theology in early Reformed thinkers, such as Luther, Calvin, and, notably,
Vermigli.34 Richard Muller cautions scholars as well that the fact that
scholasticism referred primarily to a method of teaching does not preclude
the incorporation of ideas from medieval scholastic authors into Reformed
theology.35 Sketching some prevalent examples briefly, especially in relation to
Thomism, show how this occurred.
One of the clearest examples of critical incorporation of medieval theology
into Reformed thought is Lambert Daneau’s commentary on the first book of
Lombard’s Senetentia, introduced above. Reformed appeals to Aquinas were
even clearer and more common than those to Lombard. For instance, Aquinas
famously explained divine immutability by describing God as purus actus.
This meant that in God there was no potentiality and all actuality. This was
33
Willem J. van Asselt, “Scholasticism Revisited: Methodological Reflections on the Study of
Seventeenth-Century Reformed Thought,” in Seeing Things Their Way, ed. Alister Chapman, John
Coffey, and Brad S. Gregory (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2009), 154–74.
34
D. V. N. Bagchi, “Sic et Non: Luther and Scholasticism,” in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in
Reassessment, ed. R. Scott Clark and Carl R. Trueman (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006); D. C.
Steinmetz, “The Scholastic Calvin,” in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment (Carlisle:
Paternoster, 1999), 16–30; Emidio Campi, Shifting Patterns of Reformed Tradition, vol. 27, Reformed
35
Richard A. Muller, Divine Will and Human Choice: Freedom, Contingency, and Necessity in Early
Modern Reformed Thought (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2017), 41, 39–45.
an effort to defend divine immutability without reducing the God of Scripture

to an abstract limiting concept of an unmoved mover. God as purus actus
became a commonplace in Reformed thought, as exemplified by Polanus.36
The Christianized Aristotelian ideas of habits and acts expressed in Aquinas
flowed naturally into Reformed thinking as well. While Aristotle treated a habit
as a disposition of the soul resulting from repeated action, Aquinas added the
concept that a habit could be disposition or bent of the soul that preceded
subsequent acts. Thus both original sin and regeneration could be classified as
habits that determined actions rather than dispositions resulting from repeated
actions (though subsequent acts of sin or of grace could solidify an existing
habit). Reformed authors such as John Owen incorporated these ideas into his
concept of sanctification.37 In addition to these examples, medieval debates over
whether the being of God took priority over the will of God (Aquinas) or vice
versa (Duns Scotus) also found their way into Reformed theology, particularly
in relation to the necessity of Christ’s atonement.38 A previous section noted
in passing that Polanus adopted the Thomistic position on this issue, as did
most Reformed authors. However, notable theologians and members of the
Westminster Assembly, such as William Twisse (1578–1646) and Samuel
Rutherford (1600–61), leaned in a Scotist direction in their treatments of the
relationship between the divine will and attributes. Examples like these of
medieval ideas passing into Reformed theology could be multiplied, but the
ones presented here should suffice to give students of Reformed scholasticism
a general sense of the catholic character of the movement.
The catholic character of Reformed scholastic theology did not stop with
the middle ages, however. Reformed scholastics appropriated ideas from cross-
confessional and contemporary sources as well. For example, John Owen drew
extensively from Jesuit Francisco Suarez in his treatment of divine justice as an
essential attribute of God in relation to Christ’s atonement.39 More surprisingly,
36
Polanus, Syntagma Theologiae Christianae, 860, 966.
37
Christopher Cleveland, Thomism in John Owen (Farnham and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2013), 79–80.
38
Carl R. Trueman, “The Necessity of the Atonement,” in Drawn into Controversie: Reformed
Theological Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism, ed. Mark Jones and
Michael A. G. Haykin, vol. 17, Reformed Historical Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
2011), 207.
39
Carl R. Trueman, John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man (Aldershot and Burlington, VT:
Ashgate, 2007), 43–4.
perhaps, Aaron Denlinger has argued at length that Reformed authors partly
developed their doctrine of the covenant of works through the influence of
Ambrogio Catarino, who was a member of the counter-Reformation Council
of Trent.40 The irony of this story lies in the fact that Catarino believed his
doctrine of a covenant between God and Adam on behalf of the human race
bolstered the Roman Catholic concept of merit while Reformed authors
drew from the idea to strengthen the representative parallels between Adam
and Christ. Reformed authors, such as Bernardinus de Moor, also drew
appreciatively from Johann Gerhard, who was a prominent seventeenth-
century Lutheran theologian, in explaining their doctrines of Scripture.41 In
counseling people to interpret Scripture, Edward Leigh commended reading,
“The Jewish expositors, the ancient Fathers, and other Interpreters, ancient
and modern, Popish and Protestant,” all in subject to the analogy of faith. He
concluded that such sources can be useful, “if they be read with judgment.”42
What is most striking about this kind of cross-confessional interaction is that
Reformed authors borrowed ideas in this way while retaining their distinctively
Reformed confessional identities. Arguably, the scholastic method coupled
with clearly defined confessional boundaries made this kind of catholic critical
interaction possible.
Conclusions
This brief treatment of one aspect of the catholicity of Reformed scholasticism

should give readers seed thoughts as to why Reformed scholasticism provides a
critical model of how to benefit critically from the tradition of the entire history
of the church. Doing so was one of the goals of medieval theology, especially via
Lombard and through subsequent commentaries on his Senetentiae. Though
only one Reformed author (partially) followed the tradition of commenting
40
Aaron C. Denlinger, Omnes in Adam Ex Pacto Dei: Ambrogio Catarino’s Doctrine of Covenantal
Solidarity and Its Influence on Post-Reformation Reformed Theologians (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2010).
41
Translation Center, 2014), 192, 201, 241.
42
Edward Leigh, A Systeme or Body of Divinity Consisting of Ten Books, Wherein the Fundamentals and
Main Grounds of Religion Are Opened (London, 1654), 111.
on the Senetentiae, interaction with historical and contemporary theology

consistently marked the development of Reformed theological systems. The
increasing stability of the Reformed system of doctrine, coupled with the
extensive use of scholastic method, provided Reformed authors with the
stability to do this without leaving their theological commitments behind. As
van Asselt and Dekker have pointed out, a common scholastic method and
terminology provided scholastic authors from diverse confessional traditions
with the apparatus needed to converse meaningfully about theological issues
without erasing theological differences.43 By contrast, such boundary lines
tend to disappear in modern ecumenical conversations in which a common
methodological apparatus is largely absent.
In this connection, Matthew Levering’s provocatively titled volume, Was
the Reformation a Mistake?, raises some interesting considerations. He rightly
highlights that late medieval theology and piety was not entirely a “desolate
drought,” as some Protestants seem to assume.44 He even agrees that though
the Reformers, in his estimation, made some mistakes, the Reformation
itself was not a mistake.45 Levering recognizes that Protestants and Roman
Catholics drew their theological systems from Scripture read in light of a
Catholic interpretative tradition that they shared in common. While he argues
that this fact may ultimately provide grounds for ecumenical conversations,46
it is important to note here that engaging the catholic interpretive tradition of
the church was as integral to classic Reformed thought as it was to its Roman
Catholic and Lutheran counterparts.
William Perkins illustrates the Reformed attitude to the Christian tradition
well in his book, The Reformed Catholic. The first line of his epistle to the reader
defined a Reformed catholic as that man who believed the same articles of faith
as the Church of Rome while purging that faith of the errors and corruption
introduced by the Roman Church.47 Reformed scholastics desired to go along
43
Asselt and Dekker, “Introduction,” 38.
44
Levering, Was the Reformation a Mistake? 30.
45
Levering, Was the Reformation a Mistake? 31.
46
Levering, Was the Reformation a Mistake? 189–90.
47
William Perkins, Catholicus Reformatus, Hoc Est, Expositio et Declaratio Praecipiuarum Aliquot
Religionis Controversiarum: Quae Ostendit, Quatenus Ecclesiae Ex Dei Verbo Reformatae in Iis Cum
Ecclesia Rom. Qualis Est Hodie Est, Consentiunt, et Quatenus Ab Edadem Dissentiunt, Adeoque
in Quibus Numquam Ei Consentire Debent (Hanoviae, 1601). The epistle to the reader has no
pagination.
with Roman Catholic theology as far as they could within the bounds of
Scripture.48 Where Roman Catholicism departed from Scripture, Reformed
orthodox theologians regarded themselves as the true catholics. Andreas
Rivetus exemplified this conviction by entitling his three-volume refutation of
Jesuit theology, Catholicus Orthodoxus, Oppositus Catholico Papistae.49 Perkins
added that the “Pontificos” had no warrant to accuse Protestants of schism
because the so-called Roman Catholics were the true schismatics by departing
from the historic catholic faith.50 What is important to note here is that, from
a Reformed viewpoint, the catholic Christian tradition as well as Scripture,
which was the foundation of their theology, drove them to teach a distinctively
Reformed theology in distinctively Reformed churches and universities.
Reformed theology itself demanded critical interaction with the entire catholic
Christian tradition without enslaving theologians to the opinions of anyone
other than God himself, who spoke by the Spirit in Scripture. This leads to
the question of the continuities and discontinuities that existed between
Reformation theology and the various stages of Reformed orthodoxy.
48
For example, Manton cites Roman Catholic cardinal Cajetan as providing a helpful interpretation of
James 1:15. Thomas Manton, A Practical Commentary, or an Exposition with Notes, on the Epistle of
James (London, 1652), 113.
49
Andreas Rivetus, Catholicus Orthodoxus, Oppositus Catholico Papistae, vol. 1, 3 vols. (Geneva, 1644).
50
Perkins, Catholicus Reformatus, 12.
152
9
A Theology of Continuities and

Discontinuities
Throughout the twentieth century, authors such as Basil Hall, Brian Armstrong,
and R.T Kendall, and others popularized a theory pitting Calvin against the
later Calvinists.1 This approach generally taught that Reformed orthodoxy
marked a fall from Calvin’s earlier Scripturally based theology. Reformed
scholasticism was the primary perpetrator of this fall, according to these
authors. Recent scholarship has largely overturned these conclusions, in large
part due to the herculean labors of Richard Muller, whose Post-Reformation
Reformed Dogmatics should be regarded as nailing the coffin to the Calvin
versus the Calvinist theory shut so tightly that it will be difficult to resurrect
this theory from the primary source evidence under which it is buried.2 Other
scholars have sung the funeral song of this theory as well, resulting in what
may (hopefully) prove to be an irreversible shift in scholarship surrounding
Reformed scholasticism. Those rejecting the Calvin versus the Calvinists
approach have noted clearly as well that Calvin was not the founder of a
theological tradition, but that he was one prominent teacher among others
known as Reformed.3 Andreas Rivetus certainly represented the Reformed
1
For a treatment of the history of research on Reformed scholasticism in light of three general
approaches to the subject and five methodological shifts, see Willem J. van Asselt, “Reformed
Orthodoxy: A Short History of Research,” in A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, ed. H. J.
Selderhuis, vol. 40, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2013).
2
Though Muller has noted subsequently that the Calvin versus the Calvinists approach continues to
persist in some circles. Richard A. Muller, “The Problem of Protestant Scholasticism—A Review and
Definition,” in Reformation and Scholasticism: An Ecumenical Enterprise, ed. Willem J. van Asselt
and Eef Dekker (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 45–50.
3
Yet as Gary Jenkins points out, Thomas Stapleton (1535–98) reserved his sharpest invectives for
John Calvin. He accused Calvin of being a “shape changer.” In his treatment of the chief authors
of Protestantism, which spanned 53 pages, he devoted 18 pages to Luther, 4 to Melanchthon, and
31 to Calvin. This shows that while it is a mistake to regard Calvin as the founder of the Reformed
tradition on this score when he wrote that while Calvin was a faithful servant
and honorable teacher, he nevertheless was not the head of Reformed religion
nor did Reformed theologians acknowledge him to be its author.4
Nevertheless, the doctrinal continuity between Reformation and post-
Reformation theology does not preclude development and elements of
discontinuity. In some ways, development is a form of discontinuity. This
author believes that Reformed scholasticism stood in basic continuity with
early Reformed thought while it developed the implications of this theology
and expressed it in a more scholastic form.5 The purpose of this chapter is to
show that to study Reformed scholasticism, it is necessary to grasp theological
and methodological continuities and discontinuities within Reformed thought.
Rather that provide an extensive list of relevant issues, this material treats
representative examples of substantive and methodological continuities and
discontinuities to show the general nature of Reformed scholastic theology as
it developed in the sixteenth through the eighteenth centuries.
Continuities and developments
Continuities
While one could select many areas of continuity between early Reformed
theology and its orthodox counterparts, the doctrines of Scripture and of
union with Christ and the resultant order of salvation illustrate the point well
that strong continuities existed.
tradition, we should be careful not to mitigate his influence. Gary W. Jenkins, “Thomas Stapleton:
Loathes Calvin, Will Travel,” in Theologies of Retrieval: An Exploration and Appraisal, ed. Darren
Sarisky (London: T&T Clark, 2017), 71.
4
Andreas Rivetus, Catholicus Orthodoxus, Oppositus Catholico Papistae, vol. 1, 3 vols (Geneva, 1644), 1:4.
5
Scholarly approaches to the relationship between Reformation theology and orthodoxy/
scholasticism fall generally under three categories: (1) Discontinuity, (2) Negative continuity, and
(3) Positive continuity. Willem J. van Asselt and Eef Dekker, “Introduction,” in Reformation and
Scholasticism: An Ecumenical Enterprise, ed. Willem J. van Asselt and Eef Dekker (Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 29–32. The present chapter reflects a positive continuity approach
without precluding elements of discontinuity.
Continuities and Discontinuities 155
Early Reformed authors believed that the Bible was the Word of God.6 The
divine authorship of Scripture resulted in the divine authority of Scripture.
Since the purpose of Scripture was to make people wise for salvation through
faith in Christ, the Scriptures must also be perspicuous in themselves.
However, Scripture is not clear to all readers. The problem was not with the
Bible, but with the hearts of unregenerate people who sought to understand
it.7 The Holy Spirit must overcome people’s sinful prejudices to enable them
by faith to receive the message of the Bible, especially as it regarded Christ and
the way of salvation through him. The Scriptures were also sufficient to make
believers complete for every good work.8 This meant that the Bible was a final
and complete rule of all matters concerning faith and practice, requiring no
additional revelation or magisterial interpretation of the church. The canon
of Scripture was closed, it excluded the apocryphal books accepted by the
Roman Catholic Church, and the Spirit used the reading and preaching of
the Scriptures to bring people to faith in Christ and to the true knowledge of
God through him.9 Reformed orthodox authors retained all of these elements
of the doctrine of Scripture, organizing them in a systematic fashion.10 They
also stated more explicitly that Scripture was the principium cognoscendi, or
cognitive foundation of theology.11 Yet Scripture was more than a cognitive
6
For a cogent defense of this claim against neo-orthodox denials of it, see J. V. Fesko, “The Doctrine
of Scripture in Reformed Orthodoxy,” in A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, ed. H. J. Selderhuis,
vol. 40, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 429–64.
7
Volumen Compactum, Novissime Emendatum (Hanoviae, 1610), 610.
8
9
Second Helvetic Confession 1; Westminster Confession of Faith 1.1.
10
Exegetica, Dogmatica, Elenchtica & Practica, Perpetua Successione Conjugantur (Trajecti ad Rhenum,
and Amstelodami: Sumptibus Societatis, 1715), 21–2; Edward Leigh, A Systeme or Body of Divinity
Consisting of Ten Books, Wherein the Fundamentals and Main Grounds of Religion Are Opened
(London, 1654), 81. Concerning the attributes of Scripture, Mastricht included (1) Authority,
(2) Truth, (3) Integrity and preservation, (4) Sanctity and purity, (5) Perspicuity, (6) Perfection
(including sufficiency), (7) Necessity, (8) Efficaciousness and power. As a point of comparison, Leigh
treated the following: (1) Divine authority, (2) Truth and certainty, (3) Scripture as the rule of faith
and manners, (4) Necessity, (5) Purity and holiness, (6) Sufficiency and perfection, (7) Perspicuity.
The basic coincidence of these lists from a Dutch and English author highlights the relative stability
of such treatments during this period.
11
Franciscus Junius, De Theologia Vera; Ortu, Natura, Formis, Partibus, Et Modo (Lugduni Batavorum,
1594), 82–92; Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia, 17.
foundation, since receiving Scripture as the Word of God and knowing God
through faith in Christ was a product of the supernatural work of the Holy
Spirit. This meant that the goal of theology as regards the one studying it was
the true knowledge of the true God.12
Jesus Christ was the sum and substance of the Reformed gospel. In
summarizing his counsel on preaching, Perkins (or at least his English
translator) reduced “the summe of the summe” to “Preach one Christ, by
Christ, to the praise of Christ.”13 Christ accomplished everything necessary for
the salvation of God’s elect through his incarnation, his perfect obedience, his
suffering and, especially, his atoning death, his resurrection, and his ascension
and session in heaven.14 Salvation, in all its aspects, must be by Christ alone to
the exclusion of human merit and to the exclusion of any other intermediaries,
whether saints, angels, or even the Virgin Mary.15 Christ alone can reconcile
sinners to God because, as the Westminster Larger Catechism stated, “there is
none in heaven or earth appointed to or fit for that glorious work but Christ
alone.”16 Christ did all that he did in the place of his people and they can
contribute nothing to this work. Yet Calvin asked what good it would do us if
Christ accomplished all of these things while remaining apart from us.17 We
must be united to him through faith to receive him and all of the benefits of
redemption in him. We must first be born of the Spirit to receive Christ by
faith. This leads to genuine repentance, which then marks the entire Christian
life. In Christ, we are justified freely through his blood, in which our sins are
forgiven and we are counted righteous through the imputation of Christ’s
12
Thus Junius’s well-received definition of theology: “Theologia est sapeientia rerum divinarum.”
Sapientia entailed the experimental knowledge of divine things as they related to God. Junius, De
theologia vera., 25.
13
William Perkins, The Arte of Prophecying, Or, a Treatise Concerning the Sacred and Onely True
Manner and Methode of Preaching (London, 1607), 148. This summary page is not included in the
original Latin edition of this work.
14
XX–XXI, 2 vols., Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1960), 2.16.19;
trans. Riemer A. Faber, vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 2:183.
15
Consider Westminster Larger Catechism 179: “God only being able to search the hearts, hear the
requests, pardon the sins, and fulfill the desires of all; and only to be believed in, and worshipped
with religious worship; prayer, which is a special part thereof, is to be made by all to him alone, and
to none other.”
16
Westminster Larger Catechism 181.
17
Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.1.1.
righteousness. Union with Christ occurs through faith and union alone applies
Christ’s finished work to believers. According to Calvin, the second grace
inseparably tied to union with Christ is what he called regeneration.18 This
referred to the renewal of life that began at the new birth and stretched through
the course of the Christian life. Adoption referred to the rights and privileges
belonging to those united to Christ, resulting in their eternal inheritance as
joint heirs with Christ.19 While the place of adoption in relation to the other
benefits flowing from union with Christ was somewhat unclear in earlier
Reformed authors, Reformed orthodox authors generally treated adoption as
logically following justification, since justification constituted the right leading
to the legal transaction inherent in adoption.20 The relationship between
adoption and justification in the context of union with Christ in Reformed
orthodoxy merits further exploration. In any case, it is unfortunate that some
have blamed Turretin for leading adoption into neglect by subordinating it to
justification.21 Such assertions short-change the Reformed tradition by failing
to research the development of historical ideas in historical contexts. Finally,
glorification marked the end of the process of salvation. Salvation in its entirety
came to believers through faith in Christ alone.
While the so-called five solas were a later historical construct, they capture
well the continuities that existed between Reformation and post-Reformation
theology in relation to Scripture and union with Christ. The true knowledge of
the true God through Christ came by the reading and preaching of Scripture
alone. The grace of God alone was its foundation to the exclusion of creaturely
merit. Christ alone was the only mediator between God and man. Believers
received Christ and hits benefits by faith alone. All of these things reached
toward the end of true theology, which was the glory of God alone.
18
Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.3.
19
Leigh, Body of Divinity, 511: “It is the gracious sentence of God the Father on a believer, whereby for
Christ’s sake he calls believers his children, and really admits them into the state and condition of
children.”
20
William Ames, Medulla S.S. Theologiæ, in Fine Adjuncta Est Disputatio De Fidei Divinæ Veritate.
Editio Tertia Priori Longe Correctior (Londini: Apud Robertum Allottum, 1629), 143–8; Watson,
Body of Divinity, 134–9; Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia, 823–32; Johann Heinrich
Heidegger, Corpus Theologiae Christianae, vol. 1, 2 vols. (Tiguri, 1732), Locus XXII, 85–93.
21
David B. Garner, Sons in the Son: The Riches and Reach of Adoption in Christ (Phillipsburg, NJ: P
& R Publishing, 2016), 302–3; Sinclair B. Ferguson, Some Pastors and Teachers: Reflecting a Biblical
Vision of What Every Minister Is Called to Be (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2017), 57.
Developments
Developments in Reformed theology surrounded and undergirded such basic

points of continuity as those described above. One aspect of development
was an increasingly Thomistic doctrine of God, which began to characterize
most Reformed treatments of theology proper.22 Reformed orthodoxy began
to follow standard medieval questions in their treatments of theology proper,
such as an sit, quails/quid sit, and quis sit deus.23 The first question addressed
whether or not there was a God; the second what kind of God he is; and the
third who he is, which corresponded to the doctrine of the Trinity. This order
of proceeding did not represent building one piece at a time from natural
theology with the result that the unity of God was central and his Triunity
was an afterthought or appendix to theology proper.24 Polanus, for example,
appealed to the Trinity throughout his treatment of divine oneness and of the
particular divine attributes, giving readers the impression that he intended God’s
Triunity to take center stage.25 Following the Heidelberg Catechism, Theodorus
Vandergroe (1705–84) developed God’s Triunity prior to introducing the
divine attributes.26 This pattern holds true with Ursinus’s commentary on
the catechism and Chamier’s refutation of Roman Catholicism.27 The fact
that the abovementioned logical method of treating the doctrine of God
largely became the standard one, however, shows a measure of development
22
Sebastian Rehnman, “The Doctrine of God in Reformed Orthodoxy,” in A Companion to Reformed
Orthodoxy, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis, vol. 40, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition (Leiden:
Brill, 2013), 353–401; Andreas J. Beck, “God, Creation, and Providence in Post-Reformation
Reformed Theology,” in The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 1600–1800, ed. Ulrich L.
Lehner, Richard A. Muller, and A. G. Roeber (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 195–212.
23
For example, Johannes Cloppenburg, Exercitationes Super Locos Communes Theologicos (Franekerae,
1653), Disputation I in Loci De Deo. Unfortunately, the original text includes no page numbers.
24
Contra Gijsbert Van den Brink, “Reformed Scholasticism and the Trinitarian Renaissance,” in
Scholasticism Reformed: Essays in Honour of Willem J. van Asselt, ed. Maarten Wisse, Marcel Sarot,
and Willemien Otten, vol. 14, Studies in Theology and Religion (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 333.
25
For representative samples, see Polanus, Syntagma Theologiae Christianae, 857–8, 861, 878, 885, 895,
901, 911, 922, 955, 985, 997, etc.
26
Theodorus Vandergroe, The Christians Only Comfort in Life and Death: An Exposition of the
Heidelberg Catechism, ed. Joel R. Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation
Heritage Books, 2016).
27
Zacharias Ursinus and David Pareus, Corpus Doctrinae Orthodoxae: Sive, Catecharum Explicationum
D. Zachariae Ursini Opus Absolutum D. Davidis Parei Opera Extrema Recognitum … Adiuncta
Sunt Miscellanea Catechetica … ([Genevae]: sumptibus Samuelis Crispini, 1616); Daniel Chamier,
Panstratiae Catholicae Corpus, Sive Controversarium de Religione Adversus Pontificos Corpus, vol. 1,
5 vols (Genevae, 1626).
in Reformed theological method. In early Protestant thought, Calvin and

Melanchthon included the doctrine of the Trinity in their theological systems
with little reference to the divine attributes while Wolfgang Musculus added a
lengthy exposition of the divine attributes that was permeated with trinitarian
and soteriological overtones.28 Reformed orthodoxy largely standardized how
theologians addressed such questions in relation to whether there was a God,
what he is, and who he is. This more scholastic way of doing things retained
the content of earlier Reformed teaching on theology proper while it unified
theologians with respect to the questions that they should be asking and
answering.
Another area of development from Reformation to post-Reformation
theology relates to Calvin’s use of “regeneration” to refer both to the new birth
and to sanctification. While using the term “regeneration” to refer to both the
inception and the progress of the Spirit’s renewing work in believers retained
the organic unity between his initial and later work, it could result in a measure
of confusion as well. Given that distinctions lay at the heart of scholastic
methodology, distinguishing between regeneration and sanctification enabled
later Reformed authors to delineate more clearly the distinctions in the initial
and ongoing work of the Spirit in the lives of believers without sacrificing
the relationship between them. The goal of such scholastic development in
relation to the doctrine of sanctification was to clarify ideas that were always
present implicitly in Reformed theology. This was true with regard to other
areas of thought as well, such as the nature of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s
Supper,29 the distinction between antecedent and consequent necessity,30 and
many others. In this regard, Reformed scholasticism was inherently a theology
of continuity as well as of development, both with respect to the content and
to the method of theology.
28
29
9th ed. (Cantabrigiæ, 1655), 141. Wollebius taught that Christ is present in the Lord’s Supper in three
ways: symbolically in the elements, by faith through which his merits are applied to us, and by his
power (virtus et fructus).
30
Giger, 3 vols. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992), 1:226, 3.16.1-4; Jeongmo Yoo, John Edwards
(1637–1716) on Human Free Choice and Divine Necessity: The Debate on the Relation between Divine
Necessity and Human Freedom in Late Seventeenth-Century and Early Eighteenth-Century England,
vol. 22 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 179–83.
Discontinuities of method and substance?
While the Calvin versus the Calvinist thesis is no longer tenable, we must
remember that historical errors ordinarily reflect some measure of truth.
Continuity of content and method does not preclude discontinuity. As noted
above, one could argue that development is itself a form of discontinuity. While
this is a simple point to make, it is worth singling out. While students should
understand authors such as Turretin and Calvin in their respective contexts,
it remains a fact that the final products of their theological systems look very
different from one another.31 While this author believes that an organic unity
exists between them, bearing a Reformed family resemblance, it should be clear
that something like Turretin’s Elenctic Theology not only did not but it could
not likely appear in the mid-sixteenth century. This observation is not meant
to be a value judgment as much as a statement of fact. While Reformed authors
continued to write popular works of theology, the fact was that, even on the
surface, the Reformed system of theology looked different in form in the periods
of orthodoxy from its earlier counterparts. This development represents some
discontinuity without constituting a breach with earlier Reformed thought.
Development entailed discontinuity of substance to some degree as well.
This author’s purpose here is simply to list some areas that make this point
evident so that students of Reformed scholasticism will know what to look
for in their research. Reformed authors tended to defend Calvin’s orthodoxy
regarding the aseity of the Son without (in most cases) adopting his position
that eternal generation referred to the Son’s personhood rather than his deity.32
On the one hand, Reformed orthodoxy was conservative on this point finding
itself more in line with the fifteenth-century Council of Florence.33 On the
other hand, Reformed orthodoxy continued to defend Calvin and revamped
the practical outworking of its trinitarian theology in light of Soteriology.34
31
Crossway, 2010), 120–9.
32
Brannon Ellis, Calvin, Classical Trinitarianism, and the Aseity of the Son (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2012), 167–8.
33
34
Francis Cheynell, Divine Triunity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Or, the Blessed Doctrine of
the Three Coessentiall Subsistents in the Eternall Godhead Without Any Confusion or Division of the
Distinct Subsistences or Multiplication of the Most Single and Entire Godhead Acknowledged, Beleeved,
The development of a Reformed doctrine of a so-called covenant of works

included elements of continuity and discontinuity as well. While it is arguable
that Calvin and others believed implicitly in a covenant between God and
Adam affecting the entire human race,35 there is no question that orthodoxy
alone clarified and codified the both the covenants of works and of grace.36
By the time of the Westminster Assembly, omitting the idea of the covenant
of works from Reformed theology, even if one preferred to call it something
else, was virtually unthinkable.37 During this time period in the Netherlands,
a Brakel could go so far as to write, “Acquaintance with this covenant is of
the greatest importance, for whoever errs here or denies the existence of the
covenant of works, will not understand the covenant of grace, and will readily
err concerning the mediatorship of the Lord Jesus.”38 If this assessment refers
to the language of the covenant of works, then most early Reformed authors
would fall under Brakel’s severe censure. If ideas are in view instead, then one
can see the seed thoughts of a covenantal Adam/Christ parallel in Reformed
thought from the beginning.39
Adored by Christians, in Opposition to Pagans, Jewes, Mahumetans, Blasphemous and Antichristian

Hereticks, Who Say They Are Christians, but Are Not (London, 1650), 232–4.
35
Peter A. Lillback, The Binding of God: Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology (Grand
Rapids, MI, and Carlisle, Cumbria: Baker Academic; Paternoster, 2001); Jordan J. Ballor, Covenant,
Casuality, and Law: A Study in the Theology of Wolfgang Musculus, vol. 3. Refo500 Academic Studies
36
R. A. Muller, “The Covenant of Works and the Stability of Divine Law in Seventeenth-Century
Reformed Orthodoxy: A Study in the Theology of Herman Witsius and Wilhelmus À Brakel,” Calvin
Theological Journal 29, no. 1 (1994): 75–101; Lyle D. Bierma, The Covenant Theology of Caspar
Olevianus (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2005); Stephen J. Casselli, Divine Rule
Maintained: Anthony Burgess, Covenant Theology, and the Place of the Law in Reformed Scholasticism
(Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2016).; Andrew A. Woolsey, Unity and Continuity
in Covenantal Thought: A Study in the Reformed Tradition to the Westminster Assembly, Reformed
Historical-Theological Studies (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012).
37
Andrew A. Woolsey, Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought: A Study in the Reformed
Tradition to the Westminster Assembly. Reformed Historical-Theological Studies (Grand Rapids, MI:
Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 52.
38
(Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 1:355.
39
In describing development of covenant theology in relation to Caspar Olevianus, Lyle Bierma
represents continuities and distcontinuities in the broader Reformed tradition well by stating, “Only
the first outlines of the later Reformed doctrines of a pactum salutis and foederus operum can be
detected. One ought to be careful, therefore, to claim neither too little nor too much for these other
covenants in Olevianus’ theology. His covenant theology is dominated by, though not restricted
to, the foedus gratiae.” Bierma, The Covenant Theology of Caspar Olevianus Lyle D. Bierma, The
Covenant Theology of Caspar Olevianus (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2005),
140.
Perhaps one of the fullest instances of discontinuity between Reformation

and post-Reformation Reformed theology relates to issues surrounding
church polity.40 Implicit differences existed between Protestant churches from
the beginning in relation to the proper form of Church government and the
relationship between the church and the state.41 Lutheranism and the Church of
England, each in their own ways, tended to retain the basic episcopal structure of
Roman Catholicism, minus the pope. Reformed churches generally developed
elder-governed local churches. The interrelation between these churches and
the nature of synods and synodical representation, however, branched out into
various directions in the seventeenth century. The Dutch churches did not
apply the term “church” to their synods42 while Scottish Presbyterians argued
that this was the primary mark of Presbyterian polity.43 Presbyterian polity
arose in France, but it became detached from the question of establishing the
Reformed church in the land due to the fact that French Huguenots were a
persecuted minority.44 Congregationalism grew in importance in England
and in New England, though it began to mean different things in different
settings. For many English Congregationalists, congregationalism meant that
the term “church” in the New Testament applied to local bodies only. For
some New England churches, congregationalism entailed government by the
congregation as opposed to church elders who represented the congregation.
In the former case, Congregationalism was a description of the relationship of
a local church to other churches while in the latter case it referred to the parties
40
For the complexity of such issues in a British context, see Hunter Powell, The Crisis of British
Protestantism: Church Power in the Puritan Revolution 1638–44, Politics, Culture and Society in
Early Modern Britain (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2015).
41
For some seed thoughts of the development of church/state relations in Reformed thought from
the perspectives of Zwingli, Bullinger, and Musculus, see Jordan J. Ballor, “State, Church, and the
Reformational Roots of Subsidiarity,” in The Myth of the Reformation, ed. Peter Opitz, vol. 9, Refo500
Academic Studies (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 148–59; For a general survey, see
Ian Hazlett, “Church and Church/State Relations in the Post-Reformation Reformed Tradition,”
in The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 1600–1800, ed. Ulrich L. Lehner, Richard A.
Muller, and A. G. Roeber (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 242–58.
42
A’Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable Service, 2:1–9.
43
Samuel Rutherford, The Due Right of Presbyteries (London, 1644), 53. Thanks to Rob McCurley for
helping me find this reference.
44
Martin I. Klauber, ed., The Theology of the French Reformed Churches: From Henri IV to the Revocation
of the Edict of Nantes, Reformed Historical-Theological Studies (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation
Heritage Books, 2014), 69; Raymond A. Mentzer and Bertrand Van Ruymbeke, eds., A Companion
to the Huguenots, vol. 68, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2016).
who had the right to exercise church power. In general, most post-Reformation
Reformed churches seemed to have adopted some form of Presbyterianism, or
at least of local church government by elders. Yet it is clear that the periods of
orthodoxy reflected a diversity of viewpoints on church polity that developed
beyond those of the Reformation period. To borrow Pederson’s description of
Puritanism, unity still existed within diversity.45 Yet the level of diversity on
matters of church polity, especially under high and late orthodoxy, is a clear
example of discontinuity.
In short, Reformed scholasticism was a theology of discontinuity as well as of
development. In fact, development implies both continuity and discontinuity
at the same time. The number of examples given here could be (and should be)
multiplied in any serious studies of Reformed scholastic thought.
Conclusions
Reformed scholasticism is a theology of radical continuity with respect to

the Protestant Reformation rather than radical discontinuity. By “radical,”
this author means that Reformation and post-Reformation theology were
essentially rooted in the same soil, resulting in the same kinds of plants and
fruit. However, if no discontinuity existed between Reformed scholasticism
and earlier Reformed theology, then we could not examine it as a distinct time
period. These basic facts lead to the following brief conclusions.
First, theological continuity does not preclude theological and
methodological development. Second, new centuries and shifting international
contexts often bring new questions and diverse answers with them. Third,
Reformed scholasticism was relatively uniform in methodology, but it admitted
a relative diversity in content and theological emphases. Fourth, and lastly, late
orthodoxy heightened levels of discontinuity with earlier Reformed thought.
Among other things, it did so by elevating the use of reason in theology and,
at times, by seeking to reduce the Reformed system to “fundamental articles.”46
45
46
Martin I. Klauber, “Theological Transition in Geneva from Jean-Alphonse Turretin to Jacob Vernet,”
in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006), 256–70.
To regard Reformed scholasticism as continuous with earlier Reformed

thought, it must be marked by development rather than mere disjuncture. Yet
development is always discontinuous as well as continuous with what goes
before it. This analysis coupled with the above chapters in this part has given
us with a canvass on which we can now paint a picture of the character of
Reformed scholasticism more clearly in light of its international catholicity
and the piety inherent in the Reformed system.
Part Four
The Character of Reformed

Scholasticism: International
Catholicity and Piety
166
10
International Catholicity
Reformed scholasticism was an educational movement. Scholastic method and

vocabulary unified Reformed thinking on an international scale that would
not have been possible otherwise. However, unity of method and vocabulary
does not negate the fact that national contexts affected Reformed thought as
well.
A previous chapter argued that Reformed scholasticism was a theology in
conversation with the entire catholic Christian tradition. This chapter shows
that the character of scholastic education promoted catholic unity among
Reformed churches that transcended international boundaries without
negating the importance of national contexts. It argues that to understand
Reformed scholasticism, it is vital to understand its international character.
“International” here describes both the educational process and various
localized expressions of Reformed theology. The international catholicity
of Reformed scholasticism furnishes us with the opportunity to introduce
the character of Reformed scholasticism in the various nations in which it
flourished.
International education and teaching
Reformed scholasticism was inherently international. Under the medieval

university system, universities commonly exchanged both professors and
students.1 This practice continued under Reformed scholasticism and it largely
1
Catholic University of America Press, 2010), 184.
offset the provincial character of theological education.2 These so-called

peregrinatio academica constituted a unifying factor in Reformed theology.
Coupled with the standardization of theological language and vocabulary, the
very process of education under Reformed scholasticism had the tendency
to promote catholic unity among Reformed churches. The careers of Peter
Martyr Vermigli, Franciscus Junius, and Francis Turretin illustrate this clearly.
Peter Martyr illustrates the international catholicity of Reformed
scholasticism by the nature of his career. Though he was one of the magisterial
Reformers, the form of his theology was more overtly scholastic and medieval
than many of his Reformed counterparts. In light of the fact that the life-
expectancy of a Reformer in sixteenth-century Italy was frequently low,
Vermigli became more of an international figure in the Reformed world. He
taught in England and influenced a generation of Reformed ministers.3 His
Loci Communes, which was actually comprised of a collection of his writings
by his students arranged topically, continued to exert influence in England into
the coming century. The Latin language allowed him to transcend national and
cultural boundaries, in relation to both his teaching and his writing. Vermigli
was not unique in this regard, though he gives a clear example of the wandering
Protestant professor.
The life of Franciscus Junius highlights the international character of
Reformed theological training and teaching as well. He studied in law Bourges
and Lyon and theology in Geneva.4 Much like Calvin, Junius always had his
heart set on France, though he was never able to return there effectively or
permanently. As a result, Junius spend most of his career pastoring churches
and teaching in the Netherlands and Germany, with the occasional and often
troubled hiatus into France.5 Once again, Junius’s use of the Latin language,
coupled with scholastic distinctions and vocabulary, made it possible to
translate and to transfer Reformed theological instruction from nation to
nation with relative ease.
2
3
Paul R. Schaefer, The Spiritual Brotherhood: Cambridge Puritans and the Nature of Christian Piety
(Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011), 63.
4
Franciscus Junius, A Treatise on True Theology: With the Life of Franciscus Junius, trans. David C.
Noe (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014), xii.
5
Junius, A Treatise on True Theology, xiii–xiv.
International Catholicity 169
The experience of Francis Turretin reinforces the above picture while, if

anything, reflecting an even more international experience with regard to
theological education than in the cases of Vermigli and Junius. Turretin studied
at Geneva, Leiden, Utrecht, Paris, and under the controversial professors of
Saumur, before eventually teaching theology in Geneva.6 The peregrinatio
academica helped offset the theological imbalances of some of these schools
while exposing Turretin to some of the best teachers in the European Reformed
world at the time. This kind of international crossover was possible only in
light of a common way of doing Reformed theology conveyed through the
medium of a common language. Scholastic method facilitated the former
while writing in Latin constituted that latter. Moreover, books like Maccovius’s
Scholastic Discourse show students of Reformed scholasticism what both of
these features could look like in practice and how they promoted catholic
unity in Reformed thinking across internal lines.
Reformed orthodoxy in various regions of Europe
While scholasticism made international crossover possible between Reformed

universities, national contexts still played a role in giving distinct flavors to
Reformed churches that otherwise shared a general catholic unity. The survey
below is not an exhaustive treatment of all of the nations in which Reformed
theology developed as much as it is a general introduction that draws from
representative samples. Major omissions in this section, such as Reformed
scholasticism in North America and Scotland, reflect the fact that the author
does not need to treat every area in which Reformed theology flourished
to convey its international catholicity to readers. Philip Benedict’s Christ’s
Churches Purely Reformed remains an unparalleled introduction to the growth
of Reformed theology internationally through the Reformation and post-
Reformation periods and students should become familiar with his panoramic
survey. While the chapter treating Reformed piety below will highlight some
of the differences that existed between Reformed churches internationally,
6
Giger, 3 vols. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992), 642.
this chapter stresses their catholic unity while remaining sensitive to national
contexts. The goal is to give readers a sweeping overview of the dissemination
of Reformed scholasticism at a glance.
England
Reformed theology developed in its own unique way in England. While

this could be said of every nation in which Reformed theology developed,
it applies particularly to England in light of the tumultuous origin of the
Protestant church there. From its inception under Henry VIII (r. 1509–47),
the Reformed church in England struggled to define itself. Initial attempts at
reform were relatively modest, with Henry seeking to retain a Roman Catholic
Church minus the pope. Simultaneously Lutheran influences gained traction
in England during this time.7 This struggle was exacerbated after Henry’s
death. His son Edward VI (r. 1547–63) took the English church in a decidedly
Reformed direction with the help of influential theologians such as Thomas
Cranmer (1489–1556). “Bloody” Mary (r. 1553–8) succeeded Edward and
swung the English church violently back toward Rome, executing Cranmer
and other Protestant leaders. When Elizabeth I (r. 1558–1603) ascended the
throne, her primary goals regarding the church related to its peace and unity
under the headship of the monarchy. She aimed at uniformity of religion under
the crown. She retained the confessional character of Reformed theology while
reintroducing less-Reformed sounding language into the prayer book, such as
priests and altars in relation to the Lord’s Supper.
In many ways, the Elizabethan settlement embodies all of the preceding
historical factors that contributed to the rise of the Protestant church in
England. The idea that the monarch was the head of the church instead of
the pope carried over from Henry VIII’s reign into Elizabeth’s. A Reformed
orthodox confession that originated under Edward VI via Cranmer continued
in the form of the Thirty-Nine Articles under Elizabeth. The hands of Calvin,
Vermigli, Bucer, and, especially, Cranmer found lasting expression in the
English liturgy as well. Some believed, especially those who came to be known
7
James Edward McGoldrick, Luther’s English Connection: The Reformation Thought of Robert Barnes
and William Tyndale (Milwaukee, WI: Northwestern Publishing House, 1979).
as Puritans, that the English Reformation was half-baked and that the English
church needed further reform to match their continental counterparts.8 Others
liked the current state of things and others still, such as William Laud (1573–
1645), tried to push the English church even more solidly in the direction of
Roman Catholic doctrines and practices.9 For the most part, however, English
Protestants from Elizabeth onward agreed that the English church should be
decisively Protestant and not Roman Catholic and distinctively Reformed and
not Lutheran in its confession.
A previous chapter outlined already the ways in which scholasticism
flourished in Cambridge and Oxford during this time period, with a special
emphasis on Oxford.
William Laud and his amended prayer book led to deep concerns for public
worship and piety. John Owen illustrates this in his four undated sermons
entitled, “Providential Changes, An Argument for Universal Holiness” in
which he summarized the work of continuing reformation in the Church of
England under two headings. In the first of these sermons, he argued that the
two primary pursuits of Christians should be holiness and godliness. Holiness
referred to the principles and practice (doctrine and piety) of the Christian
life. Godliness referred to “the worship of God according to the appointment
and institution of Christ.”10
Some of the major contributions of the English church to Reformed
scholasticism are found in the large body of devotional literature produced
by English ministers who studied scholastic theology at Cambridge and
Oxford. This observation will naturally raise questions in the minds of some
readers over how these devotional emphases relate to Puritanism. The next
chapter seeks to outline how Puritanism related to Reformed orthodoxy
and scholasticism. In the meantime, it is enough to note that piety came to
the forefront even in the writings of decidedly anti-Puritan authors, such as
8
Patrick Collinson, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1967).
9
10
1850), 9:137. Owen based these distinctions on his understanding of the Greek terms in his text.
The three above sentences are taken from Ryan M. McGraw, A Heavenly Directory: Trinitarian
Piety, Public Worship, and a Reassessment of John Owen’s Theology, Reformed Historical Theology
Richard Hooker.11 Reformed scholasticism in Scotland deserves extended

treatment in its own right as well and its omission here reflects only the highly
selective character of this narrative of international catholicity.12
France/Gaul
The Reformed churches in France/Gaul were always a decided minority.13

By 1685, they constituted roughly 4 to 5 percent of the French population.14
Their confessional tradition mirrored standard emphases in other countries.
However, the persecuted and precarious status of Reformed religion in France
shifted the focus of these churches away from some features that marked
Reformed churches in other lands. While other Reformed churches sought
to establish their churches through official government sanction, French
Reformed churches increasingly sought to justify their existence and to survive
under a hostile Roman Catholic government.
French Reformed churches, and to a lesser extent universities, were officially
tolerated under the Edict of Nantes (1598–1685). Practically, they were
increasingly marginalized, suffering forms of persecution such as Reformed
church members not being permitted to hold public office in France. The Edict
of Nantes allowed Reformed churches to exist and to meet for worship for a
time without offering much comfort beyond this. When Louis XIV revoked
the edict, French Protestants faced severe forms of persecution. In addition to
execution, imprisonment, or exile, they also faced the possibility of having their
children taken from them and placed in Roman Catholic homes permanently.
This echoed medieval precedent, since the Fourth Council of Toledo had
decreed that the children of Jews who were forcibly converted to Catholicism
11
12
Aaron C. Denlinger, Reformed Orthodoxy in Scotland: Essays on Scottish Theology, 1560–1775 (New
York: T&T Clark, 2014).
13
While “France” is not entirely an anachronistic term, Gaul was still the preferred term at the time.
For example, page 2 of the unpaginated “ad lectorem” section of Daniel Chamier’s (1565–1621)
polemical work against Roman Catholicism states that he was called to preach the gospel “in
Gallia.” Daniel Chamier, Panstratiae Catholicae Corpus, Sive Controversarium de Religione Adversus
Pontificos Corpus, vol. 1, 5 vols (Genevae, 1626).
14
Raymond A. Mentzer and Bertrand Van Ruymbeke, eds., A Companion to the Huguenots, vol. 68,
Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 68:274.
could be taken from their families and placed either in monasteries or Catholic
homes for proper education.15 Estimates suggest that nearly 200,000 French
Protestants went into exile in the late seventeenth century, approaching a total
of nearly 750,000 exiles.16
The existence of French Reformed churches was always tenuous under
the period covering Reformed orthodoxy.17 The revocation of the Edict of
Nantes resulted in a massive exodus of French Reformed refugees, especially
to Switzerland and to the New World.18 Many notable French theologians
contributed to Reformed scholasticism, such as Franciscus Junius, John Daille,
Andreas Rivetus, and Pierre du Moulin, but most of them gained influence
and renown through teaching in other places such as Germany or Switzerland
instead of in France. Ramus’s pedagogical influences also rose in France
during this time period.19 Reformed scholasticism flourished in the academies
of Sammur, Montauban, Montpelier, and Nimes through the efforts of a
national synod in Montpelier in 1598 for a time.20 Controversies arose as well
in Sammur over the hypothetical universalism of men such as John Cameron
(1579–1625), Claude Pajon (1626–86), and Moses Amyraut (1596–1664).21
French Protestantism enjoyed international influence, largely resulting from
persecution, and Reformed orthodoxy was res-established to some extent after
the death of Louis XIV, facing the new challenge of addressing and adapting to
Enlightenment ideas.22
German/holy roman empire
Germany was, from the outset, divided regionally between Reformed,

Lutheran, and Roman Catholic confessions. The Reformed churches in
15
Gavin D’Costa, “Retrieval and Religions: Roman Catholic Christians and the Jewish People after the
Holocaust,” in Theologies of Retrieval: An Exploration and Appraisal, ed. Darren Sarisky (London:
T&T Clark, 2017), 300.
16
Mentzer and Van Ruymbeke, A Companion to the Huguenots, 254.
17
Tobias Sarx, “Reformed Protestantism in France,” in A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, ed. H. J.
Selderhuis, vol. 40, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 226.
18
Mentzer and Van Ruymbeke, A Companion to the Huguenots, 68:285–6.
19
Sarx, “France,” 232–5.
20
Sarx, “France,” 241.
21
22
the Palatinate resisted efforts by Elizabeth I to create a Protestant league in

Germany to Lutheranize this region under Elector Johann Casmir, pushing
instead to retain a distinctively reformed confessional identity.23 Rather than
following the model of the Genevan academy, German schools followed
the Strasbourg model set up by Johannes Sturm.24 Reformed theological
education took root only in the Universities of Heidelberg and Marburg,
resulting in the establishment of “high schools” that served the purposes of
university education without partaking of their privileges.25 Ursinus taught
at Heidelberg, while Caspar Olevianus taught there and at the high school
at Herborn, bolstering the reputation of the latter.26 Controversies over the
theology of Johannes Piscator, which gained international attention, arose in
Herborn as well. Well-known Reformed high schools also arose in Steinfurt
and Bremen.27 In the seventeenth century, much of these educational efforts
were interrupted by war.28 The close proximity of early modern Germany
to surrounding nations in Europe ensured the importing and exporting of
theological ideas, controversies, professors, and students.
Reformed scholasticism in Germany left a lasting mark on the Reformed
world. Ursinus and Olievianus, both of whom taught at Heidelberg, gained
prominence through their teaching as well as through the pervasive use the
Heidelberg Catechism. Musculus came from German origins during the
early orthodox period as did Heidegger under high orthodoxy, though both
men spent most of their academic careers in Switzerland (Bern and Geneva,
respectively). Jerome Zanchius deserves special mention for his international
renown as a Hebraist, for his De Tribus Elohim, and through his debates with
the Lutheran Martin Chemnitz over Christology and sacramental theology.29
23
Andreas Muhling, “Reformed High Schools in Sixteenth-Century Germany,” in A Companion to
Reformed Orthodoxy, ed. H. J. Selderhuis, vol. 40, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition
24
Muhling, “High Schools,” 180.
25
26
27
Muhling, “High Schools,”188–92.
28
Muhling, “High Schools,”193.
29
Theology and Religion Monographs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016); Stefan Lindholm,
Jerome Zanchi (1516–90) and the Analysis of Reformed Scholastic Christology, vol. 37, Reformed
De Tribus Elohim sought to establish the doctrine of the Trinity from the Old
Testament based largely on Zanchi’s understanding of Hebrew grammar and
exegesis. It became one of the predominant works on the Trinity throughout
all subsequent periods of Reformed orthodoxy.
Poland and Eastern Europe
Reformed churches flourished in Poland and Eastern Europe, though with

unique circumstances and a checkered history. Populations were lower in
Eastern Europe and “the power and privileges of the aristocracy increased.”30
Protestantism grew in these regions primarily through influencing the
political elite. The evangelical movement grew quickly in this region due to
the virtual absence of monarchical authority. The Roman Catholic Church
“virtually collapsed from within” after an Ottoman triumph in 1526.31 Benedict
observes that it is difficult to determine why Reformed churches prospered
while Lutheran ones generally did not.32 Though Poland had officially adopted
Christianity in 966, the country tolerated considerable religious diversity,
including Orthodox Christians, Muslims, Jews, and others.33 Paganism also
flourished in some regions. Close trade with Germany brought Luther’s ideas
quickly into Poland and Lithuania, though there were initial attempts to
stamp them out.34 The influences of the nobility soon prevailed in favor of
the new reforms, however.35 Though Protestant churches remained outside of
the law, the nobility secured a measure of toleration in practice by the mid-
sixteenth century. As a result, Benedict notes, “The polish Reformation was a
reformation without martyrs.”36
Threats to orthodoxy rose early in the Polish Reformation and continued
with it. John Calvin recommended John a Lasco (1499–1560) to help with the
30
Philip Benedict, Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism (New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 2002), 255.
31
Benedict, Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed, 256.
32
33
34
35
36
efforts, who returned to his homeland of Poland in 1556.37 Lasco implemented

synods independent of the state, but refused to implement a national
confession of faith due to his Erastian leanings. Arian views of the Trinity soon
came into the Polish church through Francisco Stancaro (1501–74), who had
helped found it.38 After the death of Lasco, the majority of native Protestant
ministers in Poland had embraced antitrinitarian views. This resulted in a loss
of momentum in the Protestant cause.39 Reformed noblemen sought political
alliances with Lutheran and Czech Brethren to stave of anti-trinitarian
influences, which was successful to some extent.40 They also tightened their
relations with the Swiss and adopted the Second Helvetic Confession.41
These trinitarian debates spilled into the later Socinian controversy, with
the Socinian Raccovian Catechism being published in Poland in 1605.
Some Polish Reformed orthodox theologians, notably Johannes Maccovius,
exerted international influence. Maccovius studied in Danzig, Marburg, and
Heidelberg and spent his teaching career at Franeker in the Netherlands.
He was a prominent figure in the Synod of Dort and spent much of his life
combating Socinian theology.
With regard to Eastern Europe more broadly, Graeme Murdock notes that
Hungary and Transylvania were the only two countries in this part of the world
in which substantial Reformed churches survived the periods of orthodoxy.42
Bullinger and Musculus were some of the dominating theological influences
in Hungary in particular.43 Socinian ideas and attacks on the Trinity continued
to spread throughout Eastern Europe. Partially in response to this threat, the
Reformed churches there stressed trinitarian theology as well as sacramental
theology.44 Many Hungarian theologians studied abroad in the Netherlands,
and David Pareus (1548–1622), who was Ursinus’s successor at Heidelberg,
37
38
39
40
41
42
Graeme Murdock, “Reformed Orthodoxy in East-Central Europe,” in A Companion to Reformed
Orthodoxy, ed. H. J. Selderhuis, vol. 40, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition (Leiden: Brill,
2013), 296.
43
Murdock, “East-Central Europe,” 297.
44
Murdock, “East-Central Europe,” 300–2.
exercised considerable influence in this part of the world through at least

one prominent student.45 Puritan piety and Presbyterian polity also came to
Hungary via England, though these emphases were blunted to a large extent in
the mid-seventeenth century.46 When the Habsburg monarchs restored Roman
Catholicism as the dominant religion in these regions, Reformed churches
persisted in Hungary and Transylvania throughout the early modern period.47
This brief sketch of Reformed orthodoxy in Poland and Eastern Europe
helps build the overarching picture of the international catholicity of
Reformed scholasticism. Both orthodox and heretical views moved fluidly
across national lines, resulting in corresponding Reformed responses and
developments. Universities and prominent professors, particularly abroad in
this case, became the primary mechanism of disseminating Reformed thought
among pastors and churches. This shows the pivotal role of scholasticism in
transferring ideas using a common language and method across national lines
with a far reach.
Spain
There is less to say about Reformed scholasticism in Spain than there is about
other national contexts. Spain became a stronghold of Roman Catholicism,
especially after the long-fought and hard-won battle against Islam through
the Reconquista. The inquisition also came back into use in sixteenth-century
Spain with Protestants serving as their primary target. As a recent monograph
captures well, Reformed orthodoxy in Spain was largely an “underground”
movement.48 A few Reformed orthodox writers, such as Juan de Valdez (1490–
1541), lived and wrote in seventeenth-century Spain, but they were few in
number. This means that Protestant influences through Spanish universities
were virtually null and void. There were also few examples of Spanish Reformed
theologians serving as professors at other universities throughout Europe. This
was due, in large part, to the fact that Spanish Protestants were persecuted
severely and they were small in number. The reason why this author includes
45
46
47
Murdock, “East-Central Europe,” 320.
48
Luttikhuizen, Underground Spanish Protestantism.
Spain in this survey is at least to remind readers that Reformed orthodoxy

stretched to Spain as well as to other countries in Europe.
The Netherlands
The Netherlands became an international center for Reformed theology

and education. It was marked during this period by religious toleration and,
accordingly, became a relatively safe place for numerous refugees.49 Because
the Netherlands has factored into a previous chapter and will receive greater
attention in the next, this section will be brief. It focuses on at least one
theological controversy in the Netherlands as well as the importance of the
Dutch university system in the realm of Reformed scholasticism.
The Arminian controversy loomed large in the Netherlands and abroad.
The Synopsis Purioris was a response from an international group of authors
(Polyander, Thysius, Rivetus, and Waleaus). This volume followed the ordinary
disputation cycle used at the University of Leiden to demonstrate that the
University had been thoroughly purged of Arminian teaching. Leiden had a
large student body that was composed of an international group of students.50
Early in its history, Franciscus Junius, Lucas Trelcatius, and Francicus Gomarus
taught at Leiden in addition to Jacobus Arminus. Arminius revised the
Reformed theology of grace based on his innovative views of the will of God,
borrowed partly by the Roman Catholic theologian, Louis de Molina (1536–
1600).51 In his view, God knew all things, including all possibilities. Instead
of the divine will determining the actions of rational creatures, he taught that
God predestinated people to eternal life because he knew the outcome of the
contingent choices of his free and rational creatures. This created a middle
category between the standard ones of God’s necessary knowledge (of himself
and of all things in relation to himself) and his free knowledge (of those things
that God chose freely to create and ordain).52 This amounted to God electing
49
Antonie Vos, “Reformed Orthodoxy in The Netherlands,” in A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy,
ed. H. J. Selderhuis, vol. 40, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2013),
122–3.
50
Vos, “The Netherlands,” 128.
51
52
Vos, “The Netherlands,” 167.
and predestinating people to everlasting life based on their foreseen faith

rather than on the basis of God’s prior determination. These core ideas led
Arminus’s followers, such as Simon Episcopius (1583–1643), to conclude that
humanity was not totally depraved by sin (still able to choose God and receive
Christ), that the Spirit’s call in conversion was not irresistible (people could
resist his call), that election was conditioned on foreseen faith, that Christ’s
atonement was universal for all people, and that the saints might not necessary
persevere to the end.53 This led many Arminians to deny the substitutionary
nature of Christ’s atonement as well as to question whether the Trinity was a
fundamental article of the faith. For these reasons, many Reformed authors
associated them with Socinianism. The appointment of Conrad Vorstius as
Arminius’s successor in teaching theology exacerbated these concerns due to
his radical ideas and Socinian leanings.54 The Synod of Dort as well as the
Synopsis Purioris marked key responses to Arminian ideas. The international
influence of the Dutch universities entailed the international dissemination
of both Arminian and Reformed orthodox theology, though Reformed
influences continued to dominate these universities. These Reformed schools
also increasingly addressed the onset of Enlightenment ideas, most notably
Cartesian philosophy, into the late orthodox period.
Some of the major contributions of the Netherlands to Reformed
scholasticism include a robust emphasis on piety, particularly in relation to the
practical use of the Trinity, as well as developing some of the best Reformed
universities in the world. The next chapter expands the place of the Netherlands
in relation to piety and a previous chapter introduced the Dutch university
model in relation to Leiden and Utrecht. The important point here is that
Dutch universities exercised an international influence on Reformed thought
and education. Benedict even notes that Johannes Hoornbeeck, who was an
important figure in the Netherlands under high orthodoxy, likely coined the
phrase, “Ecclesia reformata, quia semper reformanda,” which continues to be a
popular slogan in Reformed churches to the present day.55 These observations
53
For Episcopius’s point by point refutation of Dort along these lines, see Simon Episcopius, Antidotum
Contines Pressiorem Declaratioem Propriae et Genuine Senetentiae Quae in Synodo Nationali
Dordracena Est et Stabilita (Leiden, 1620).
54
Muhling, “High Schools,” 189–90.
55
Benedict, Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed, xvi.
show why we should assign a special role to the Netherlands in the realm of
Reformed scholasticism.
Switzerland
Eberard Busch notes that “Switzerland is the country of origin for the
Reformed churches.”56 Peter Opitz goes so far as to suggest that it is possible
to say that Calvinism was “made in Switzerland” and was “Switzerland’s most
successful export.”57 Like the Netherlands, Swiss universities and professors
had international sway in light of relatively tolerant immigration policies.
However, the faculties at the Swiss universities had an even greater international
representation and the position of Switzerland in Europe made it ideally suited
to disseminate Reformed ideas.
Reformed theology flourished in Zurich, Bern, and Geneva in particular. As
Christian Moser has noted, scholars have devoted more attention to Geneva
than to Zurich and Bern.58 Zwingli and Bullinger taught at Zurich. Musculus
and Vermigli also taught there, the former dying one year before Calvin
and one year after Vermigli. Bullinger’s Second Helvetic Confession was the
most prominent confessional statement in Switzerland during the periods of
orthodoxy. The Canons of Dort proved to be the hinge linking the early and
high orthodox periods in Switzerland while the Formula Consensus Helvetica
(1675) appeared toward the end of this period.59 The Genevan academy become
the dominant academic institution during the period of orthodoxy, boasting
names such as Calvin, Beza, Daneau, John Diodati (1576–1648), Theodore
Tronchin (1587–1657), and Benedict Turretin (1588–1631).60 Francis Turretin
later took the chair of theology in Geneva as well. In Basel, Simon Grynaeus
(1540–1617), following Zwingli and Bullinger, subordinated the church to
56
Eberard Busch, “Reformed Theology in Continental Europe,” in Cambridge Companion to Reformed
Theology (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 231.
57
Peter Opitz, “Calvin in the Context of the Swiss Reformation: Detecting the Traces,” in Calvinus
Pastor Ecclesiae Papers of the Eleventh International Congress on Calvin Research, ed. Herman J.
Selderhuis, vol. 39, Reformed Historical Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016), 26.
58
Christian Moser, “Reformed Orthodoxy in Switzerland,” in A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy,
ed. H. J. Selderhuis, vol. 40, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 196.
59
Moser, “Switzerland,” 197.
60
the state under the view that would come to be known as Erastianism. Basel
boasted its own high order of theologians with Amandus Polanus, Johannes
Wollebius, and the famed Hebraist, Johann Buxtorf the Elder (1564–1629),
teaching there.61 Johann Heidegger later taught there as well and he introduced
tempered Cocceian influences into Swiss theology.62 This small sample of
names from the early and high orthodox periods illustrates the international
character and influence of Swiss theological education, including figures of
French, Italian, German, Polish, and other national origins. The primary
sources cited frequently in the present book reflect the importance of Swiss
Reformed scholasticism in the movement as a whole. Controversies arose
during this period in Swiss theology over Johannes Piscator’s (1546–1625)
denial of the imputation of Christ’s active obedience as well as the hypothetical
universalism of the Sammur theologians.63 The Formula Consensus Helvetica
targeted the latter, though it never received widespread acceptance in the
broader Reformed world. Moser notes that this confession simultaneously
marked the peak of Reformed orthodoxy in Switzerland as well as the beginning
of its decline.64 Benedict Pictet (1655–1724) was Francis Turretin’s successor in
Geneva and he served as a transition figure to Jean-Alphonse Turretin (1671–
1737), who sought to reduce Reformed theology to a list of fundamental
articles that could be derived largely from natural principles.65 As a result,
the Canons of Dort and the Formula Consensus Helvetica had diminishing
influence in the Swiss churches and universities, accompanied by a decline in
scholastic methodology in favor of incorporating new Enlightenment ideas
into Reformed thought.66
Swiss Reformed theological education illustrates perhaps most clearly the
international character of Reformed scholasticism. If Reformation theology
61
62
63
For a treatment of Piscator’s teaching on justification, see Heber Carlos de Campos, Doctrine in
Development: Johannes Piscator and Debates over Christ’s Active Obedience, Reformed Historical-
Theological Studies (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2018).
64
65
Moser, “Switzerland,” 225; James T. Dennison, “The Twilight of Scholasticism: Francis Turretin and
the Dawn of the Enlightenment,” in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment (Eugene, OR:
Wipf & Stock, 2006).
66
was Switzerland’s most successful export, then Reformed ideas were both
imported and exported through Swiss universities during the periods of
orthodoxy. These universities boasted some of the best Reformed teachers
of the time period and they attracted an eclectic group of students from all
throughout Europe.
Conclusions
Reformed scholasticism did not develop in national isolation. In spite of the

absence of modern methods of travel and communication, Reformed ideas
spread remarkably well and fluidly across national lines. National differences
gave rise to particular controversies and differences in emphasis without
losing common ground in terms of orthodox theology and scholastic method.
Scholastic methods and vocabulary circulated through a common use of the
Latin language and promoted catholic unity among Reformed churches in a
way that often superseded and subsumed national differences.
This kind of international catholicity is perhaps one of the features of
Reformed scholasticism that stands in the greatest contrast, in some respects,
to Reformed theology today. The last chapter in this volume shows that many
modern theological institutions have become separated from their historical
roots and from one another, both in terms of language and of methodology.
Even when Reformed institutions teach in the same language, many theologians
aim to develop their own methodologies and theological vocabularies. It is
questionable, in such an environment, whether we possess the tools to achieve
the kind of international catholic unity that marked Reformed scholasticism.
This is simultaneously one of the most remarkable features of Reformed
scholasticism, from a historical standpoint, and one of the areas that modern
Reformed churches stand to learn most from.
11
Piety
Some movements in church history have drawn special attention to piety.

Whether this refers to Puritanism in England or Pietism in Germany, piety is
often singled out as their distinguishing mark. However, Reformed scholastic
systems of theology embedded piety into to the task, goals, and content of
theology. To study Reformed scholasticism, it thus is important to understand
the relationship between piety/praxis and the Reformed system of theology.
It is only in this light that students of Reformed scholasticism can determine
adequately what made so-called Reformed pietistic movements stand out
in their historical contexts. After outlining the place of piety in Reformed
scholastic theology broadly, this author has selected English Puritanism and
the Dutch Nadere Reformatie as representatives of pietistic movements. The
author will conclude that such movements often represented the development
of standard emphases in Reformed scholastic theology in ways that spoke the
common language of Reformed theology with their particular regional accents
and emphases.
Piety and the nature of theology in Reformed scholasticism
Reformed scholastic definitions of theology were calculated to wed doctrine

and practice.1 We can see this in light of medieval debates over the nature of
theology, the Reformed development of defining theology as a term, and the
implicitly trinitarian cast that definitions of theology began to take. In this
section, I intend only to bring readers up to speed on these maters without fully
1
This entire section has been adopted and adapted from my, “What Is Theology? A Puritan and
Reformed Vision of Living to God, through Christ, by the Spirit,” unpublished.
developing the historical backgrounds influencing this question.2 As such, this

treatment aims to shed enough light on the subject to avoid stumbling while
we walk through it, yet not enough to make clear all of the objects in the room.
In the medieval period, theologians debated whether theology was
theoretical, practical, or some combination of the two.3 This grew out of a long-
standing discussion in the church about the nature of theology as an academic
discipline. Reformed authors generally concluded that theology as a discipline
had both theoretical and practical components.4 Peter Martyr Vermigli
(1499–1562) was an exception that proved the rule in that he appeared to treat
theology as theoretical and philosophy as including practical elements.5 This
point was important because it set the stage for defining theology in a way that
incorporated its theoretical and practical components.
In spite of the widespread attention that the church has given historically to
defining theology, it may surprise some readers to learn that the term, “theology,”
does not appear in Scripture. However, other terms, such as “Trinity” and
“incarnation,” do not appear in Scripture either, yet theologians have argued why
they remained useful in describing biblical ideas.6 Reformed authors believed
that if they used the term “theology” at all, then they had to define it in a way that
honored Scripture. Following Peter Ramus (1515–72) as mediated via William
Perkins (1558–1602) and William Ames (1576–1633),7 most Reformed authors
2
For a full treatment of the subject, see volume one of Muller’s PRRD.
3
Orthodoxy, Ca. 1520 to Ca. 1725, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 1:340–2.
4
A. Walaeus et al., Synopsis Purioris Theologiae = Synopsis of a Purer Theology, ed. Roelf T. te Velde,
trans. Reimer A. Faber, vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 43: “Therefore in Theology theory and practice
are not placed in opposition to one another, but they are conditions associated with each other
for the purpose of obtaining everlasting life, and placed in their proper order.” [Non ergo theoria
et praxis sunt in Theologia differentiae oppositae: sed conditiones inter se ad vitam aeternam
consequendam consociatae, suoque ordine collocatae.]
5
Sebastian Rehnman, “Moral Philosophy and Moral Theology in Vermigli,” in Church and School in
Early Modern Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of a Theological
Tradition, ed. Jordan J. Ballor, David S. Sytsma, and Jason Zuidema, vol. 170, Studies in the History
of Christian Traditions (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 203.
6
Francis Cheynell, Divine Triunity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Or, the Blessed Doctrine of
the Three Coessentiall Subsistents in the Eternall Godhead Without Any Confusion or Division of the
Distinct Subsistences or Multiplication of the Most Single and Entire Godhead Acknowledged, Beleeved,
Adored by Christians, in Opposition to Pagans, Jewes, Mahumetans, Blasphemous and Antichristian
Hereticks, Who Say They Are Christians, but Are Not (London, 1650), 94.
7
Donald Sinnema, “The Attempt to Establish a Chair in Practical Theology at Leiden University
(1618–1626),” in A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, ed. H. J. Selderhuis, vol. 40, Brill’s
Companions to the Christian Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 416–17.
Piety 185
defined theology as, “the doctrine of living to God.”8 This carried the advantage
of recognizing that the term “theology” as it reflected the teaching of Scripture
addressed questions relating to the knowledge of God. Reformed scholastics
taught that the Bible is concerned not simply with knowing about God, but
with knowing God personally. The Reformed definition of theology had the
advantage of recognizing that while theology must involve sound doctrine it
must include more than doctrine alone. Theology is “the truth that accords with
godliness.”9 Those who profess to know God must not deny him in their works.
The consensus was that the church must define theology in a way that honors the
biblical teaching that the knowledge of God is experimental. As Edward Reynolds
(1599–1676) wrote, “Christ is not truly apprehended either by the fancy or the
understanding. He is at once known and possessed. It is an experimental, and
not a speculative knowledge that conceives him; he understands him that feels
him. We see him in his grace and truth, not in any carnal or gross pretense.”10
Reformed scholastic definitions of theology were trinitarian as well.
While many have struggled historically with the question of whether there
are any practical implications to the doctrine of the Trinity, older authors
believed that the Trinity was the primary locus in which doctrine and practice
converged in experimental piety.11 Since theology involved knowing God, it
also involved knowing God as triune. Johannes Cloppenburg (1592–1652)
argued that without the doctrine of the Trinity, we can never know who God
is (quis sit), even if we know that He (an sit) is and what He is (quid sit).12
8
Petrus Ramus, Commentariorum De Religione Christiana, Libri, Quatuor, Eivsdem Vita a Theophilo
Banosio Descripta (Francofvrti, 1576), 6. Ramus defined theology as the doctrine of living well
(“Theologia est doctrina bene vivendi”), which, he argued, we could do only if we looked to God as
the source of our blessedness, through faith in Christ, as the Spirit teaches us through Scripture alone.
9
Exegetica, Dogmatica, Elenchtica & Practica, Perpetua Successione Conjugantur (Trajecti ad Rhenum,
and Amstelodami: Sumptibus Societatis, 1715), 1. The Scripture citation is taken from 1 Tim. 6:2–3,
which is the head of Mastricht’s chapter on the nature of theology.
10
Edward Reynolds, Meditations on the Fall and Rising of St. Peter (London, 1677), 58.
11
Gijsbert Voetius, Selectarum Disputationum Theologicarum Pars Prima (Quinta. Accedunt
Dissertatio Epistolica De Termino Vitæ. Exercitatio De Prognosticis Cometarum. Antehac Seorsim
Editæ) (Ultrajecti, 1648), 1:473; Johannes Hoornbeeck, Theologia Practica Pars 1 (Francofurti &
Lipsiae: Bailliar, 1698), 1:136.
12
Johannes Cloppenburg, Exercitationes Super Locos Communes Theologicos (Franekerae, 1653), 97.
The original text is not paginated. The page listed here reflects the numbering in Google Books. The
section comes from the first disputation on the Trinity, paragraph 18. For the common division of the
Reformed doctrine of God in light of the three categories listed here, see Sebastian Rehnman, “The
Doctrine of God in Reformed Orthodoxy,” in A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, ed. Herman J.
Selderhuis, vol. 40, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 386.
The trinitarian knowledge of God was embedded in most basic Reformed

definitions of theology. For example, though Ramus defined theology simply
as the doctrine of living well, he explained that we can live well only if we look
to God as the fountain of all good.13 This true knowledge of God comes only
through Christ, whom both the Old and New Testaments revealed in relation
to piety and to the remission of sin.14 Yet the Spirit reveals Christ to believers
by teaching them true heavenly doctrine through Scripture alone.15 In spite
of this trinitarian expansion, it still seems strange that Ramus omitted God
from the definition of theology. Later theologians appeared gradually to make
the implications of Ramus’s definition clearer. Ames added the phrase, “living
to God” (deo vivendi) to explain what it meant to live well.16 Most Reformed
scholastics followed in his footsteps.17 Mastricht added more explicitly that
theology was the doctrine of living to God “through Christ” (per Christum).18
John Owen (1616–83) brought the trinitarian implications of Reformed
definitions of theology to their fullest expression by adding that we must live
to God, through Christ, by the Spirit.19 Whether in the shortened definition
of theology as doctrina deo vivendi or in longer versions found in authors like
Mastricht and Owen, Reformed explanations of the nature of theology were
simultaneously trinitarian and practical.
The definitions of theology from which Reformed scholastic authors drew
were designed to address the whole person. Just as human beings need to be
saved every part of their souls and bodies, so they must be subjected to God
through faith and repentance in every part of their beings. The great insight
of historic Reformed theology on this point is that theology is inherently
13
Ramus, De Religione Christiana, 6.
14
15
16
William Ames, Medulla S.S. Theologiæ, in Fine Adjuncta Est Disputatio De Fidei Divinæ Veritate.
Editio Tertia Priori Longe Correctior (Londini: Apud Robertum Allottum, 1629), 1.
17
Van Vliet overstates his case somewhat when he refers to Ames’s “very unique definition of theology
as the doctrine of living to God.” Jan van Vliet, Rise of the Reformed System: The Intellectual Heritage
of William Ames (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2013), 50.
18
Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia, 1.
19
John Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, Sive, De Natura, Ortu, Progressu, Et Studio Veræ Theologiæ,
Libri Sex Quibus Etiam Origines & Processus Veri & Falsi Cultus Religiosi, Casus & Instaurationes
Ecclesiæ Illustiores Ab Ipsis Rerum Primordiis, Enarrantur (Oxoniæ, 1661), 5–6, 462–3. My
description of Owen’s trinitarian definition of theology is a summary and conclusion primarily of
books I and VI of this work. The pages cited are representative only.
Piety 187
experimental because it is trinitarian. These general observations about the

nature of theology according to Reformed scholasticism provide the context
needed to evaluate how Puritanism and the Dutch Nadere Reformatie related
to Reformed orthodox theology more broadly.
Puritanism
Puritanism is notoriously difficult to define. For this reason, Trueman largely

rejects the Puritan epithet in his excellent treatment of John Owen’s theology.20
Randall Pederson observes that not all “Puritans” were Reformed orthodox
either.21 Puritanism encompassed such diverse figures as the Arian-leaning
John Milton (1608–74),22 “antinomians” such as Tobias Crisp (1600–43) and
John Saltmarsh (d. 1647),23 “neonomians” such as Richard Baxter (1615–91)
and Thomas Jackson (1578–1648),24 the Arminian John Goodwin (1594–
1665),25 as well as standard Reformed orthodox writers such as Owen, Thomas
Goodwin (1600–80), Anthony Burgess (d. 1664),26 and the internationally
respected William Twisse (1577–1646).27 Nicolas Tyacke even notes that the
notorious Socinians, John Fry (1609–57) and John Biddle (1615–62) “belonged
to the world of puritanism.”28 Virtually the one thing that scholars agree on
20
Carl R. Trueman, John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man (Aldershot and Burlington, VT:
Ashgate, 2007), 5.
21
vol. 68, Brill Studies in Church History (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 210–12.
22
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2011); Philip Dixon, Nice and Hot Disputes : The Doctrine of the
Trinity in the Seventeenth Century (London and New York: T&T Clark, 2003), 102–4.
23
Theodore Dwight Bozeman, The Precisianist Strain: Disciplinary Religion & Antinomian Backlash
in Puritanism to 1638, Omohundro Institute of Early American History & Culture (Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press, 2004); Mark Jones, Antinomianism: Reformed Theology’s
Unwelcome Guest? (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013); Pederson, Unity in Diversity.
24
Pederson, Unity in Diversity, 82–4.
25
John Coffey, John Goodwin and the Puritan Revolution: Religion and Intellectual Change in
Seventeenth-Century England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).
26
Stephen J. Casselli, Divine Rule Maintained: Anthony Burgess, Covenant Theology, and the Place of the
Law in Reformed Scholasticism (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2016)..
27
Chad B. Van Dixhoorn, The Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly, 1643–1652, 5 vols.
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 1:140–1.
28
Nicholas Tyacke, “Religious Controversy,” in A History of the University of Oxford Volume IV:
Seventeenth-Century Oxford, ed. Nicholas Tyacke (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 599.
with regard to Puritanism is the Puritan emphasis on personal piety. However,

in light of the brief sketch above of the role of piety even in the most scholastic
Reformed systems of theology, this raises the question of how emphasizing piety
made orthodox Puritans stand out from Reformed orthodoxy more broadly.
We have seen above that John Owen helpfully reduced the concerns of
Puritanism to two things: the desire to reform the worship of the Church of
England, and the cultivation of personal holiness. The first of these concerns
demanded a distinctively English context while the latter was largely common
to Reformed orthodoxy in general. This makes Puritanism a distinctively
English movement. The decidedly English focus of Puritanism has led some
authors to question, for example, whether or not Scottish Presbyterians
qualify.29 The relationship of Puritanism to the Church of England as a reform
movement helps readers evaluate how Puritanism fit in the broader Reformed
world. As noted above, the university system in England during the Puritan
period was decidedly scholastic, whether before, during, or after the decade
or so during which Puritans dominated the English government. While
concerns over reforming the worship and piety of the Church of England
did not necessary require orthodoxy, the fact remains that most Puritans
were Reformed orthodox in their theology as well. Rightly or wrongly, most
Puritans believed that they were simply seeking to promote what was common
to Reformed churches on the continent.
Puritan concerns sometimes led to excesses. On the one hand, Thomas
Watson (1620–86) urged people to press into the kingdom with little mention
of faith in Jesus Christ.30 On one occasion, he even misstated the role of Christ’s
blood as the ground of Christian hope, and later amended his statement, in his
work on the Beatitudes.31 His concerns over antinomianism led to sporadic
29
Margo Todd, “The Problem of Scotland’s Puritans,” in The Cambridge Companion to Puritanism, ed.
John Coffey and Paul C. H. Lim (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 174–88.
30
Thomas Watson, Heaven Taken by Storm, Or, the Holy Violence a Christian Is to Put Forth in the
Pursuit After Glory (London: Printed by R.W. for Tho. Parkhurst, 1669).
31
Thomas Watson, The Beatitudes (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1989), 67, 98, respectively. Stressing
the necessity of tears of repentance he wrote, “A ship that is always sinking must have the water
continually pumped out. While the soul leaks by sin, we must be still pumping at the leak by
repentance. Think not, O Christian, that your sins are washed away only by Christ’s blood, but
by water and blood” (67). Later he partly retracted this statement, noting that many falsely placed
hope in their tears of repentance instead of in Christ: “They go to their tears when they should go to
Christ’s blood. It is a kind of idolatry to make our tears the ground of our comfort. Mourning is not
meritorious. It is the way to joy, not to the cause” (98). The first statement is potentially ambiguous.
Piety 189
theological imbalances that do not mark all of his books.32 On the other
hand, many Puritans, such as Owen, Manton, and Goodwin, were marked by
scholastic precision and theological and pastoral balance. This resulted in some
of the best theological and devotional literature in the history of the church.
The point to take away at this juncture is that piety did not distinguish
Puritanism from Reformed orthodoxy or even from Reformed scholasticism.
Piety was inherent in classic Reformed theology by virtue of Reformed
definitions of theology as an academic discipline. Puritanism largely represents,
therefore, an attempt to single out certain aspects of Reformed orthodox and
scholastic teaching that they believed were deficient in their own national
context. Such concerns are even more evident in the Dutch Nadere Reformatie.
The Dutch Nadere Reformatie
In many respects, the Dutch Nadere Reformatie ran parallel to English

Puritanism. Puritan refugees such as William Ames, Thomas Goodwin, and
many others influenced this movement through their time in exile in the
Netherlands.33 This movement arose out of a perceived dead orthodoxy in
which theologians and pastors taught the right things in the wrong spirit.34
In other words, this movement was rooted in a concern over a perception
of orthodoxy without devotional fervor. Authors like Jean Taufin (1529–
1602) and, especially, Jean de Labadie (1610–74) raised the bar for church
membership and assurance of salvation, seeking to come as close as possible
to admitting regenerate people only to the Lord’s Supper. This resulted in a
In light of the subsequent clarification, he appears to have meant that Christ not only forgives
sinners but cleanses them from the practice of sin. However, the tension over the two statements
about Christ’s blood remains.
32
For example, Thomas Watson, A Divine Cordial, Or, The Transcendent Priviledge of Those That Love
God and Are Savingly Called (London, 1663).
33
Keith L. Sprunger, The Learned Doctor William Ames; Dutch Backgrounds of English and American
Puritanism (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1972); Keith L. Sprunger, Dutch Puritanism a
History of English and Scottish Churches of the Netherlands in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries
(Leiden: Brill, 1982); Mark Jones, Why Heaven Kissed Earth: The Christology of the Puritan Reformed
Orthodox Theologian, Thomas Goodwin (1600–1680), vol. 13, Reformed Historical Theology
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), 42–4.
34
A. De Reuver, Sweet Communion: Trajectories of Spirituality from the Middle Ages through the
Further Reformation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 106–10 (introducing the life of
William Teelinck).
crisis over the assurance of salvation with fewer and fewer people coming to
the Lord’s Table.35 Labadism pressed concerns over personal godliness to such
an extent that it verged on seeking to establish a pure visible church consisting
of elect regenerate people only.36
Like Puritanism, many Nadere Reformatie theologians did not take this
movement to such extremes. Wihelmus a Brakel, introduced in a previous
chapter, was once a Labadist who began to see the devastating pastoral effects
that the movement had in local churches.37 For this reason, his Christian’s
Reasonable Service is filled with comforting Christ-centered pastoral
applications. In this case, the excesses of the movement led to successes in other
areas. This movement encompassed both Voetians and Cocceians, though
they differed, sometimes sharply, over doctrinal matters, such as whether Old
Testament saints experienced the forgiveness of sins, and practical ones, such
as the place of the Sabbath in the Christian life.38 Debates over the propriety
of incorporating Carteisan philosophy into Reformed theology raged into the
high orthodox period as well.39 Voetius wrote about the necessity of piety in
the first part of volume three in his series of disputations and Cocceius taught
in a notable book on covenant theology that doxology must be the test of all
true theology.40 The Nadere Reformatie was decidedly Reformed orthodox and,
35
In his introduction to a book by Wilhelmus Schortinghuis (1700–50), James de Young notes
concerning his ministry to a congregation of 1500: “During his sixteen years as pastor there, only
twenty-three made a profession that admitted them into full communion. Two of these were from
a neighboring congregation and two were his own daughters. One student of his life calculates that
by the end of his ministry, the Midwolda congregation had fewer than one hundred communicant
members despite his regular baptism of several dozen babies every year.” Wilhelmus Schortinghuis,
Essential Truths in the Heart of a Christian, ed. James A. De Jong, trans. Harry Boonstra and Gerrit
W. Sheeres, Classics of Reformed Spirituality (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books,
2009), 17–18.
36
Even those who pulled away from the Labadist movement, such as Brakel, still restricted membership
of the church in every respect to true believers only. See Wilhemus A’Brakel, The Christian’s
Reasonable Service, ed. Joel R. Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage
Books, 2012), 2:7.
37
A’Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable Service.
38
Willem J. van Asselt, The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669) (Leiden and Boston:
Brill, 2001), 28, 76–7.
39
Aza Goudriaan, “Descartes, Cartesianism, and Early Modern Theology,” in The Oxford Handbook
of Early Modern Theology, 1600–1800, ed. Ulrich L. Lehner, Richard A. Muller, and A. G. Roeber
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 533–49.
40
Voetius, Selectarum Disputationum Theologicarum Pars Prima (Quinta. Accedunt Dissertatio
Epistolica De Termino Vitæ. Exercitatio De Prognosticis Cometarum. Antehac Seorsim Editæ);
Johannes Cocceius, The Doctrine of the Covenant and Testament of God, trans. Casey Carmichael,
vol. 3, Classic Reformed Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2016), 166–7.
Piety 191
like Puritanism, its proponents believed that they were merely seeking what
Reformed churches enjoyed elsewhere. Once again, the perception of such
authors that piety was inherent to Reformed theology is significant.
The extreme influences on this movement, however, altered the theology
of the movement. This is evident in relation to how high and late orthodox
Dutch theologians defined the visible and invisible church. Early Reformed
theology taught that there were visible and invisible aspects of the church from
the beginning to explain why not all who were in the church by profession
were truly of the church through regeneration. Early statements, such as the
Belgic Confession of Faith, were somewhat ambiguous on this point, stating
that the church consisted of “a holy congregation or gathering of true Christian
believers,” urging people that “since this holy assembly and congregation is the
gathering of those who are saved and there is no salvation apart from it, people
ought not to withdraw from it.”41 Article twenty-nine then urged people to
identify and join this church by appealing to its outward marks through its
ordinances. While most Reformed authors began to argue that the visible
church consisted of those professing the true religion together with their
children and the invisible church consisted of the elect only,42 the Dutch church
took a slightly different direction. Nadere Reformatie theologians began to
define the church exclusively in terms of what other Reformed authors called
its invisible aspects.43 Consequently, they redefined the visible church in terms
of the church of the elect making itself visible in local bodies. In this light,
Theodorus Vandergroe (1705–84) recommended discarding the distinction
between the visible and invisible aspects of the church entirely.44 This raised
significant pastoral problems, such as whether or not baptized people whom
God alone knows remain unregenerate were actually church members. Authors
such as Brakel and Vandergroe effectively answered no while other continental
author such as Turretin effectively said yes.45 The Dutch position transformed
41
Beglic Confession of Faith, articles 27–8.
42
For example, Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison, trans. George
Musgrave Giger, 3 vols. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992), 3:12; 18.3.6. See also Westminster
Larger Catechism, questions 62–65.
43
A’Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable Service, 2:5–7.
44
Theodorus Vandergroe, The Christians Only Comfort in Life and Death: An Exposition of the
Heidelberg Catechism, ed. Joel R. Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation
Heritage Books, 2016), 1:461–2.
45
the distinction between the visible and invisible aspects of the church into
two different forms of the invisible church, the one considered ideally and
the other partially and imperfectly manifested in time. The Belgic Confession
did not require this conclusion since the terms “visible” and “invisible” are
absent in that document. The seventeenth-century shift in Dutch definitions
of the church doubtless resulted from the Labadist controversy. This feature of
the Nadere Reformatie has not been explored adequately by historians of this
movement.
The Dutch Nadere Reformatie was shaped by international factors. It was
influenced by English Puritan refugees, by French theologians (Taufin and
Labadie), and even by Scots such as Alexander Comrie (1706–74). It was
Reformed orthodox in theology and promoted Reformed theology through
its universities, which had some of the most notable Reformed scholastics on
their faculties. Piety marked both Voetians and Cocceians, despite their other
differences. In addition, piety in itself did not distinguish the Nadere Reformatie
from Reformed churches in other lands, even though piety took distinctive
shape in the Netherlands in light of peculiar national circumstances.
Conclusions
The above material shows that piety or praxis was an inherent characteristic of
Reformed scholastic theology. This potentially makes Reformed scholasticism
a rich resource for pastors in their ministries to the church today. Additionally,
the integration of piety into the system of theology should caution historians
and others from distancing pietistic movements that arose from within
Reformed orthodoxy too much from the character of Reformed orthodoxy in
general. As Jason Zuidema has argued, we cannot afford to ignore piety as part
of the picture of Reformation and post-Reformation theology.46 Nevertheless,
the Nadere Reformatie and Puritanism warn readers that regional peculiarities
and excesses could result from legitimate concerns, which could lead to
46
Jason Zuidema, “Word and Spirit in the Piety of Peter Martyr Vermigli as Seen in His Commentaryon
1 Corinthians,” in Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard A.
Muller on the Maturation of a Theological Tradition, ed. Jordan J. Ballor, David S. Sytsma, and Jason
Zuidema, vol. 170, Studies in the History of Christian Traditions (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 224.
Piety 193
theological imbalances in comparison to the broader Reformed community.

The best authors in such movements remained grounded solidly in the
scholastic and orthodox roots of their theological education. They tended to
speak the same language furnished by scholastic theology as other Reformed
churches and universities did, though with different accents. At the same
time, readers should remember that there was no pristine model of Reformed
orthodoxy that served as the measure by which we should judge Reformed
churches in all regions of the world. The point here is that scholars cannot
mitigate the relationship between pietistic movements and the general stream
of Reformed orthodox theology simply on the grounds that piety was central
to such movements. Piety was integrated into the goals, tasks, and system of
Reformed scholasticism. As with theological method and content, the function
of piety in Reformed scholasticism was a story of continuities, discontinuities,
and developments.
194
Part Five
Contemporary Appropriations of
196
12
What Is Next?: Personal Growth,

Theological Reflection, and Service
to the Church
In C.S. Lewis’s famous book, The Screwtape Letters, senior demon Screwtape
informs Wormwood, his nephew,
Only the learned read old books, and we have now so dealt with the learned
that they are of all men the least likely to acquire wisdom by doing so. We
have done this by inculcating the Historical Point of View. The Historical
Point of View, put briefly, means that when a learned man is presented
with any statement in an ancient author, the one question he never asks is
whether it is true. He asks who influenced the ancient writer, and how far the
statement is consistent with what he said in other books, and what phase in
the writer’s development, or in the general history of thought, it illustrates,
and how it affected later writers, and how often it has been misunderstood
(especially by the learned man’s own colleagues) and what the general course
of criticism of it has been for the last ten years, and what is “the present
state of the question.” To regard the ancient writer as a possible source of
knowledge—to anticipate that what he said could possibly modify your
thoughts or your behavior—this would be rejected as unutterably simple-
minded. And since we cannot deceive the whole human race all the time, it
is most important thus to cut every generation off from all others; for where
learning makes a free commerce between the ages there is always the danger
that the characteristic errors of one may be corrected by the characteristic
truths of another. But, thanks to Our Father and the Historical Point of View,
great scholars are now as little nourished by the past as the most ignorant
mechanic who holds that “history is bunk.”1
1
C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters (New York: Touchstone Books, 1996), 99.
So far the present book has sought to cultivate what Lewis calls the
“Historical Point of View” in relation to Reformed scholasticism. This final
chapter argues that the “Historical Point of View” is simultaneously vitally
important and insufficient to profit fully from this field of study.
Now that this book has introduced some of the necessary skills and
information for the proper study of Reformed scholasticism, this concluding
chapter shifts the reader’s attention to contemporary uses. I have divided
the remaining material into three parts: reflecting on what you have gained
through your studies, remembering your goals in writing, and recognizing
potential avenues for theological and pastoral uses. The unifying theme of
these exhortations is that to profit from studying Reformed scholasticism,
you should learn how to integrate historical theology, which you previously
separated as a discipline, into theological and practical uses through critical
reflection. While this section is briefer than preceding ones, it reflects one
of the primary aims of this book. It is at this juncture that the author’s
roles as historian, theologian, and pastor become most obvious. The
interrelationship between these roles draws readers back to the intended
audiences of this work as well, which includes students, historians, and
pastors and teachers.
Reflect on what you have gained
Profiting from any field of study demands reflection. Writing contextual

historical theology can be an arduous task. After finishing this task, students
should naturally reflect on what they have gained from their studies.
Reflecting on what you have gained from your studies lays a foundation for
remembering the goals of your studies as well as reflecting on your studies
and applying them to other ends. Such reflection should lead to thanksgiving,
humility, progress, and potential for further studies. These ideas will likely
be most valuable to those pursuing higher degrees related to Reformed
scholasticism, yet the general principles treated here can help Christian
students in this field more generally. However, the entire book of Ecclesiastes
teaches believers to reflect on what they do in life as well as why and how they
do what they do.
Personal Growth, Theological Reflection, Service to Church 199
Thanksgiving
Completing any large-scale research project should lead to thanksgiving. Give

thanks to God for his mercies in enabling you to do your research well by
finding the sources you needed, in writing and in responding to criticism to
your writing, and in carrying you through to the end. If you have completed
a higher degree, then remember the remarkable providences of the Lord in
bringing you to the right institution and in bringing the right people and
resources along the way. The triune God is sovereign over our faculties (Dan.
4:16, 33, 36), what we learn (1 Jn. 5:20), and who we know. We should thank
the Father for giving us good work to do and the resources needed to do it. We
should thank the Son, in whose name we labor to the Father’s glory (Col. 3:17).
We should thank the Spirit, who gives wisdom to craftsmen (Num. 31:1–6)
and who gives wisdom and understanding (Prov. 4:7; 1 Cor. 2:6–16). For a
Christian, prayer should permeate his or her studies and these studies should
result in prayers of thanksgiving.
Humility
Academic studies should be humbling. Researchers who finish a project

ordinarily realize how they should have begun after completing their work.
Students also go through the process of struggling to ask the right questions at
the outset of their work to completing a project with more questions than they
can possibly answer in a lifetime. History is a vast field. Reformed scholasticism
is only one narrow branch of historical theology. There will always be gaps
in the research and more questions that require further research. Even as
you are thankful for what you have learned, be humbled by what you do not
know and by what you will never know. Doing so will keep you modest in
your conclusions and make you patient with others. There are many people
with PhD’s with chips on their shoulders, seeking to prove that everyone else
is ignorant by comparison. By contrast, those who are trained in academic
historical theology should aim humbly to teach others, whether through
writing, in the classroom, or from the pulpit. Someone somewhere always
knows something that we do not, and professional quality works of history
will likely always admit of correction. The Apostle Paul exhorted believers not
to think of themselves more highly than they ought to, but to think soberly,
“as God has dealt a measure of faith to each one” (Rom. 12:3). This principle
is just as true with regard to academic gifts as it is with spiritual gifts. If you
have been paying attention during your work and have done due diligence in
your studies, then you will likely close your project by discovering that there
are more unanswered questions than you thought possible when you started.
Knowledge and experience should promote humility rather than hinder it.
Progress
Academic research should be a beginning and not an end. If executed well,

it will furnish students with useful materials to draw from for the rest of
their lives. This point is reminiscent of Trueman’s statement that historians
are like “fine wines and Scotch whisky in the barrel”; they improve with age
(and practice).2 Learning how to do sound historical research opens avenues
for more and more fruitful research. As an illustration, the present author
prepared the initial outlines for this book and the course on which it is based
from memory. This was only possible due to years of research and writing
related to critical book reviews, articles, and other projects. Seminary students
learn the skills needed for ministry ultimately by doing ministry. So students
of history develop skill in their field by writing history.
Potential
Historical theology has great potential for many uses. This is preeminently
true for students researching Reformed scholasticism with other applications
in view. Students can use their historical studies as a sounding board for
everything else they do in whatever the Lord calls them to do. This is equally
true for those pursuing careers in academic historical research and teaching,
seminary professors, and the select group of ministers who will benefit from
higher degree programs. The last section of this chapter illustrates this point
more fully in relation to theology and pastoral ministry.
2
Crossway, 2010), 178.
Remember your goals
Christian living entails asking why believers do what they do. Classic
Reformed prolegomena made theological students self-conscious of the fact
that the fruition of the triune God is the end of theology.3 The glory of God is
the ultimate goal of human life. This simultaneously makes God our summum
bonum and it places a premium on enjoying our work to God’s glory and
for the good of the church.4 This means that to profit from your studies of
Reformed scholasticism, you should keep your goals in view. These goals may
be both personal and public.
Personal goals
Two biblical principles stand out in this connection. The first is, “Therefore,
whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God”
(1 Cor. 10:31). In the context of 1 Corinthians, the Apostle Paul sought
to teach believers how to avoid strife in the church and how to exercise
charity toward believers with differing consciences and practices. As a wise
pastor, he cut through the heart of such problems by appealing to a general
principle. If Christians are consumed with doing all things to the glory of
God, in Christ’s name, with the Spirit’s help, then they will do all things well.
This principle has implications for believing historians, seminary professors,
and pastors.
First, aim to be the best historian that you can be to the glory of God. This
reflects the dignity of all lawful vocations before the Lord, and not pastoral
ministry only. With regard to academic historical research and writing, this
means applying methodology as well as possible, aiming to deal with evidence
objectively while recognizing that it is neither possible nor desirable to
abandon convictions or proper biases.
3
Franciscus Junius, A Treatise on True Theology: With the Life of Franciscus Junius, trans. David
C. Noe (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014), 210–11; Amandus Polanus,
Syntagma Theologiae Christianae Ab Amando Polano a Polansdorf: Juxta Leges Ordinis Methodici
Conformatum, Atque in Libros Decem Digestum Jamque Demum in Unum Volumen Compactum,
Novissime Emendatum (Hanoviae, 1610), 54–62.
4
Polanus, Syntagma Theologiae Christianae, 15–54.
Second, pray for the Spirit’s blessings over all your labors. Just as the Spirit
can expand the gifts of pastors, so he can expand the gifts of historians.
This counsel applies equally to seminary professors as the labor primarily
to train future ministers of the gospel. You will often be surprised at finding
unanticipated sources, making everything appear to come together at the
right time and in the right way in answer to prayer. This is not a substitute for
hard work and due diligence. Neither is it a pretext for any kind of supposed
divine inspiration or infallibility of your research. Prayer simply recognizes the
sovereignty of the triune God over every area of life, including writing about
Reformed scholasticism, and it reorients researchers toward the overarching
goals of life.
Third, search the Scriptures as you study. This advice is most pertinent
to pastors who have one foot in academic studies and one in the ministry
of the church. Testing all things by Scripture should not play into historical
conclusions resulting from academic research. Yet doing so is vital to shift
from historical theology to contemporary appropriations. Though your study
of Scripture and personal growth in the Lord is a different discipline, in this
respect, from writing history, it is nevertheless a related goal for ministers. The
materials that you are studying inherently lend themselves to the prayerful
study of Scripture, which should increase your communion with the triune
God and growth in godliness. Some authors have argued that even though
historical theology shares a methodology in common with historical studies
more generally, it is proper to regard historical theology as a subdiscipline of
systematic theology as well. The reason for this connection is that historical
theology enters into conversation with systematic theology. The form in which
ministers apply ideas from historical theology in the context of the ministry of
the church will necessarily take on a far less academic tone. Yet in systematic
and pastoral theology, searching the Scriptures alongside historical studies is
the key to making these kinds of transitions.
Public goals
The second biblical principle in view relates to public goals. In relation to

spiritual gifts, the Apostle Paul wrote, “Let it be for the edification of the
church that you seek to excel” (1 Cor. 14:12). Like the above-cited text, Paul
appealed here to a general principle to correct a specific problem in the

church in Corinth. Christians should do all things to the glory of God as well
as for the edification of the church. The second of these principles is more
immediately pressing for teachers in theological seminaries and those engaged
in the ministry of the church. Edifying the church through historical theology
entails moving beyond historical research, using historical material to teach
and preach theological ideas.
Professors in Theological Seminaries

Teachers and students alike in theological seminaries should keep the goal of
edifying the church in view. Many students attending theological seminaries
naturally develop the desire to teach. This is particularly true when they learn
under good teachers. This is the point at which educational models drawn from
Reformed scholasticism can be helpful. Professors of theology often moved
fluidly back and forth from the pastorate to the classroom, and sometimes
back again. Professors of theology were predominantly ministers of the
gospel training future gospel ministers. This author believes that this model
is healthy for the church. Few people, for example, would want to study to be
surgeons from people who have never operated on patients. Students should
ask themselves why they want to teach at a theological seminary. They should
recognize that their primary emphasis in this context will lie in training future
ministers. It is desirable to have more seminary professors who have served
as pastors before becoming professors. In the sixteenth century, the Scottish
Second Book of Discipline required that Doctors of the church primarily had
the duties of teaching students in theological schools as well as catechizing
the children in the church. The idea was that such men would be equipped to
teach theology at every level. The author once met a man who told him that he
wanted to be a seminary professor, but that he became a pastor only because
no other options were open to him. This seems to invert, at least in part, the
relationship between theological seminaries and the church. It is my conviction
that professors of theology should love the church and desire to serve her above
all other things. This is what made men such as Turretin, Witsius, and Voetius
useful to Christ’s kingdom. Remember as well, as Carl Trueman periodically
reminds his students, that very few people with PhD’s in theology will find
academic posts. While all people should labor to the glory of God in their
work and seek to help the church, professors of theology labor immediately for
the edification of the church through training her future ministers. This makes
it imperative to keep the public goals of the research and teaching that they do
constantly in view. The church is God’s primary institution for spreading the
gospel. Seminaries exist as auxiliary aids to the church. More directly related to
the content of this book, prayerfully think through ways in which your studies
can serve the church through other avenues.
Studying and writing for the edification of the church applies most directly to
ministers pursuing higher degrees. Postgraduate studies in historical theology
are not for every minister. Yet those who have the gifts, the inclination, a good
topic, and good people to work with can benefit greatly from a solid academic
program. This illustrates the point, however, that not everything a minister
does directly promotes the edification of the church. Few congregants, for
example, will read an academic thesis or book. The next section below gives
some ideas regarding how to use an academic project for other purposes. In
the meantime, edifying the church carries farther-reaching implications than
the content of one’s studies. Ministers must assess whether they are developing
the self-discipline to maintain their goals in life. For example, it is always
sad to see an acknowledgments page in a PhD thesis that asks forgiveness of
neglected families during the process of research and writing. This is a price
that any author should be unwilling to pay. In addition, the chosen subject
of research must be applicable in more than one direction. For example, a
student doing research on seventeenth-century trinitarian theology who
is preaching through the gospel of John can use the primary sources read
to further academic work as well as to foster ideas to preach and apply this
doctrine from the text of Scripture. While the form that this material takes will
differ widely in each of these contexts, developing the skill to combine tasks
in this way may be the only way of making such a project possible, especially
if the student is already active in ministry. Ministers should also find ways to
use their Latin. They should find something to read daily, or at least weekly,
if at all possible. This author has sought to do this by reading Marckius on
Zechariah, Bucer and Aquinas on John, and other Latin commentaries while
preaching through those books on Scripture. Doing so also gave rise to
finding theological observations that expanded his academic research beyond
dogmatic works into biblical commentaries, which were an important part of
Reformed orthodox theology. Laboring for the edification of the church in

conjunction with academic labors requires prayerful creativity that results in
using the same texts in more than one way at the same time.
Recognize potential avenues for theological and pastoral uses
This final exhortation delves more deeply into evaluating the theological
and methodological content of Reformed scholasticism. As Richard Muller
reminds his readers, students of Reformed thought should begin with
Reformed scholasticism as a starting point for engaging contemporary
Reformed theology, since “most of the doctrinal principles and definitions”
of Reformed theology come from this time period.5 Therefore, to profit from
your study of Reformed scholasticism, you should be aware of some of its uses
in relation to method, preaching, theology, and catholicity.
Methodological potential
Studying Reformed scholasticism can help provide a stable methodological

starting point for contemporary Reformed theology. Many modern authors
have recovered Reformed theological content to a greater or lesser extent while
bypassing classic Reformed theological method. Each system of theology in
recent years appears to implement a new way of doing things. While this is not
inherently a bad thing, it runs the risk of fragmenting contemporary Reformed
theology.
Some theological systems are largely ahistorical, claiming to build theology
from the ground up from Scripture alone.6 Such systems often develop
new epistemological models for theology, such as tri-perspectivalism, that
run the risk of cutting classic Reformed theology out of the conversation.7
5
6
John Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian
and Reformed Pub. Co., 2013).
7
For a critical evaluation of this procedure, see Ryan M. McGraw, “Toward a Biblical, Catholic, and
Reformed Theology: An Assessment of John Frame’s Systematic Theology: An Introduction to
Christian Belief,” Puritan Reformed Journal 8, no. 2 (July 2016): 197–211.
Other systems draw self-consciously from classic Christian sources while

bypassing the historical contexts of the authors cited.8 The result is that
such works give the appearance that Augustine, Anselm, Karl Barth, and
others all meant essentially the same thing. While successfully reintegrating
classic theological expressions into systematic theology, this can also result
in transforming theological content in a way that historical figures would
not have recognized.9 The danger on the other side is simply repristinating
historical ideas without applying them adequately to a contemporary setting,
or of turning systematic theology into historical theology rather than a serious
engagement with Scripture itself. As Darren Sarisky concludes, “A theology
of repetition is a dead end.”10 Still others, in bypassing classic methods of
organizing the system of theology, have produced systems without a clear
order and purpose.11 Some try as well to reorder the system of theology in
light of other disciplines, such as biblical theology.12 This can result both in
a lack of precision in terms and definitions and in a partial redefinition of
the nature and purposes of systematic theology.13 Reflecting the concerns of
classic Reformed theology, contemporary authors can also seek to incorporate
important modern philosophical concepts, such as speech-act theory, into
theological prolegomena and epistemology, both of which can affect the
content of the system in dramatic ways.14 While this process is not inherently
illegitimate, it has often created methodological distance both from classic
8
Michael Allen and Scott R. Swain, Christian Dogmatics: Reformed Theology for the Church Catholic
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016).
9
For my assessment, see Ryan M. McGraw, “Catholic Retrieval and Theological Transformation: An
Assessment of Michael Allen and Scott R. Swain’s, Christian Dogmatics: Reformed Theology for the
Church Catholic,” Westminster Theological Journal 79, no. 1 (Spring 2017): 147–59.
10
Darren Sarisky, “Tradition II: Thinking with Historical Texts—Reflections on Theologies of
Retrieval,” in Theologies of Retrieval: An Exploration and Appraisal, ed. Darren Sarisky (London:
T&T Clark, 2017), 200.
11
Douglas F Kelly, Systematic Theology Volume One: Grounded in Holy Scripture and Understood in the
Light of the Church, vol. 1 (Fearn: Mentor, 2008).
12
Richard C. Gamble, The Whole Counsel of God: God’s Mighty Acts in the Old Testament, vol. 1, 3 vols.
(Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub., 2009).
13
Ryan M. McGraw, “Redefining Systematic Theology? A Review Article of Richard C. Gamble’s The
Whole Counsel of God: Volume 1: God’s Mighty Acts in the Old Testament,” Mid-America Journal
of Theology 23 (2012): 139–50.
14
For an example in a conservative Reformed context, see Michael Scott Horton, The Christian Faith:
A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011).
Reformed prolegomena and from contemporary authors who employ their

own methodologies.15
Such methodological diversity potentially fragments the way Reformed
theology is taught today. While the answer to this problem does not lie
merely in regurgitating scholastic methods and terms, it highlights the need
to give heed to Muller’s challenge. The scholastic method of teaching with
its accompanying precise theological vocabulary promoted a more fluid
exchange of ideas for roughly 1500 years of church history in a way that did
not preclude theological and terminological development. We do not appear
to have anything approximating this at the present time. Studying Reformed
scholasticism has the potential of helping modern theologians speak the same
language by reading the same books and even starting on the same page.
There are more positive recent examples as well, however, of developing
theological systems in conversation with classic Reformed thought. For
instance, Herman Bavinck drew heavily from Reformed scholastic authors,
such as Polanus and Mastricht, filtering their thought through robust biblical
exegesis, and engaging with contemporary theological and philosophical
movements.16 More recently, Velema and van Genderen have followed a
similar model, building their theology from Scripture in conversation with
the confessional theology of the Reformed churches as well as modern authors
and theological movements.17 Willem van Vlaustuin’s, Be Renewed, stands
out as a preeminent example of what the present author has in mind.18 Van
Vlaustuin treats questions related to union with Christ and sanctification by
drawing from a wide range of historic Christian thought, picking out legitimate
questions raised by the authors treated, and evaluating, appropriating,
modifying, or rejecting their ideas in light of Scripture exegesis. His historical
analyses are contextually oriented, yet he presents distinctively Reformed view
of sanctification without becoming a slave to any single part of the catholic
15
Ryan M. McGraw, “Shifting Paradigms in Reformed Systematic Theology: A Review Article of
Michael Horton’s The Christian Faith: A Theology for Pilgrims on the Way,” Puritan Reformed
Journal 5, no. 2 (July 2013): 245–62.
16
Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, trans. John Bolt (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003).
17
J. van Genderen and W. H. Velema, Concise Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Gerrit Bilkes and Ed M. Van
Der Maas (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub., 2008).
18
Willem van Vlastuin, Be Renewed: A Theology of Personal Renewal, vol. 26. Reformed Historical
Christian tradition. Such models set a high bar for theology that is difficult to
reach; yet they illustrate the methodological potential for systematic theology
of drawing from Reformed scholastic authors and many others.
Homiletical potential
The homiletical use of academic historical theology is largely indirect. This

point applies to ministers as well as to teachers. Developing and proving a
single thesis in a paper or book-length project trains scholars how to focus.
Many people have complained that they have heard sermons, for example,
without understanding clearly what the point of the sermon was. A sermon text
has one overarching point. The individual sermon points should show how the
text proves this point and expands and applies it. The conclusion should leave
hearers with the primary significance and relevance of the text. While the form
of a sermon differs from academic writing, the focused thought process builds
overlapping skills in the student. Academic writing should make preachers
simpler and more effective in their preaching by learning to narrow things
down in an organized and helpful manner. This rule applies to teaching as well.
This author often includes a course thesis with accompanying objectives, with
subtheses and goals heading every lesson in the course.
In addition, the content and method of Reformed scholastic authors
can help promote crisp expressions and clear distinctions in teaching or in
preaching. Hearers need to know what the teacher is talking about, why they
are doing so, and how they intend to prove their points to benefit fully from
their teaching.
Theological potential
While the church today does not need theological repristination (i.e.,
simple regurgitation of historical ideas), it needs theological adaptation and
application.19 Three areas in which contemporary theology may benefit from
19
This section is slightly edited from the conclusions found in McGraw, “Catholic Retrieval and
Theological Transformation: An Assessment of Michael Allen and Scott R. Swain’s, Christian
Dogmatics: Reformed Theology for the Church Catholic.” Used with permission from Westminster
Theological Journal.
Reformed orthodox formulations can illustrate this point. These areas flow out
of some of the topics treated in previous chapters.
First, moving the beatific vision back into Prolegomena in relation to
Christ’s knowledge of God has potential to move eschatology into the core
of the system of theology. This relates to how Christ mediates the knowledge
of God to man.20 After distinguishing theology into archetypal and ectypal
theology (God’s self-knowledge and creaturely knowledge of God), Reformed
authors addressed three levels of the knowledge of God.21 The first was Christ’s
knowledge of God as incarnate (theologia unionis). This was the first and
highest level of ectypal theology.22 On one level, Christ’s knowledge of God
was unique and incommunicable by virtue of his divine nature, including
the union between his divine and human natures. On another level, Christ’s
knowledge of God became the pattern of the believer’s knowledge of God in
the context of the covenant of grace by virtue of union with him through faith.
The connecting point between the two was that the Spirit who filled Christ
now dwells in believers.23 The beatific vision came next in the cycle, since this
represented the highest knowledge of God redeemed humanity was capable
of. The beatific vision thus set the goal for theologians in via, who were on
pilgrimage to the celestial city.24 The knowledge of God possessed by these
pilgrims was the same in kind, though differing in degree, with the saints in
glory.25 These connections can help keep believers on track by reminding them
that as they do theology their chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him
forever. This construction retains the distinction between Christ revealing
20
Treier approaches something along these lines in passing. Michael Allen and Scott R. Swain, Christian
Dogmatics: Reformed Theology for the Church Catholic (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016),
237.
21
Junius, A Treatise on True Theology, 107–20.
22
Translation Center, 2014), 1:96.
23
24
Allusion to Pilgrim’s Progress intended.
25
See Westminster Larger Catechism 83: “Q. What is the communion in glory with Christ which the
members of the invisible church enjoy in this life? A. The members of the invisible church have
communicated to them in this life the firstfruits of glory with Christ, as they are members of him
their head, and so in him are interested in that glory which he is fully possessed of, and, as an earnest
thereof, enjoy the sense of God’s love, peace of conscience, joy in the Holy Ghost, and hope of glory;
as, on the contrary, sense of God’s revenging wrath, horror of conscience, and a fearful expectation
of judgment, are to the wicked the beginning of their torments which they shall endure after death.”
God as he is God the Son and Christ revealing God as he is God incarnate.
It also results in a Christological view of glory that affects the Christian life
now.26
Second, the Reformed distinction between habitual and actual sanctification
shows the organic relationship between the new birth and the Christian
life. This grew from an Aristotelian distinction in which habits described
the disposition of the soul and acts referred to actions resulting from that
disposition. In contrast to Aristotle, the Reformed (following the medieval
doctors) argued that habits did not simply result from repeated actions.27 Thus,
original sin entailed the guilt of Adam’s first sin as well as a habitual disposition
toward sin, which resulted in all actual transgressions.28 Conversely, the new
birth implanted a habitual sanctification in redeemed humanity, by which
believers became disposed to all good by the Spirit’s work in regeneration.
This included the seeds of repentance unto life and all other saving graces,
which resulted in sanctified actions, though imperfect and incomplete in this
life.29 This later distinction explains why, for example, an earlier author, such as
Calvin, used “regeneration” to refer both to the new birth and to sanctification
proper.30 While it is tempting for some to read John Murray’s distinction
between definitive and progressive sanctification into this scheme, it says
both more and less than he did. It says more by connecting sanctification to
26
Though Suzanne McDonald overstates her case slightly with regard to Owen’s uniqueness on this
point, she provides an intriguing analysis of what such Christological views of the beatific vision
might look like in practice. Suzanne McDonald, “Beholding the Glory of God in the Face of Jesus
Christ: John Owen and the ‘Reforming’ of the Beatific Vision,” in The Ashgate Research Companion
to John Owen’s Theology (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2012), 141–58.
27
Cleveland, Thomism in Owen, 91–120.
28
See Westminster Larger Catechism 25: “Q. Wherein consisteth the sinfulness of that estate whereinto
man fell? A. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consisteth in the guilt of Adam’s first
sin, the want of that righteousness wherein he was created, and the corruption of his nature, whereby
he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly
inclined to all evil, and that continually; which is commonly called original sin, and from which do
proceed all actual transgressions.”
29
See Westminster Larger Catechism 75: “What is sanctification? A. Sanctification is a work of God’s
grace, whereby they whom God hath, before the foundation of the world, chosen to be holy, are in
time, through the powerful operation of his Spirit applying the death and resurrection of Christ
unto them, renewed in their whole man after the image of God; having the seeds of repentance unto
life, and all other saving graces, put into their hearts, and those graces so stirred up, increased, and
strengthened, as that they more and more die unto sin, and rise unto newness of life.”
30
XX–XXI, 2 vols., Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1960), book 3,
chapter 3. This section treats regeneration as encompassing sanctification and repentance.
regeneration more solidly and it says less by omitting possible Scripture uses
for God setting believers apart to himself. This old distinction is useful for
developing the organic relationship between sanctification and union with
Christ by the Spirit.
Third, believers in Reformed churches can become confused over the
meaning of the sacramental language embedded in our Reformed confessions.
The Westminster Standards, for example, use terms such as represented,
signified, exhibited, sealed, conferred, and applied to describe the meaning
of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.31 Such Reformed doctrinal standards
are historical documents as well as contemporary documents. They have
a historical context with a historical meaning and they have contemporary
uses in contemporary churches. Older authors, such as Johannes Wollebius,
can help bridge the gap from historic terminology to contemporary
meaning. For example, after describing the sacramental union between the
sign and the thing signified, including differing ways in which we can refer
to God’s presence, he created a spectrum of terms ranging from signifying,
to exhibiting, to applying, to sealing.32 Sacraments as signs pointed to a
spiritual reality. Sacraments exhibited Christ when the minister held them
forth for the faith of the recipients. Believers then received the application
of Christ’s benefits through the ministerial exhibition of the sign. The last
element is sealing, which Wollebius left largely undefined, yet which had an
objective element in God sealing his promises and a subjective element in
God sealing Christ and his benefits to his people.33 This thought is similar
31
For two examples, see Westminster Confession of Faith 27.3 and Larger Catechism 162.
32
9th ed. (Cantabrigiæ, 1655), 126–7.
33
Wollebius, Compendium, 126–7. “These four species of signs should be observed well, against those
who cry out against us to have nothing but signs in the sacraments. Signs, therefore, either signify
only, as a painted image signifies a man, or they exhibit also, as a scepter, keys, or similar things,
which being exhibited, regal power and the right to enter the house is conferred. Or, in addition to
these things, there are applying signs, as it is with regard to God’s promise concerning the protection
of the 144,000, who also have a sign applied and impressed on their foreheads by the Angel. Rev.
7:3. Or, finally, sealing signs, which are of the same nature as down-payments, seals, and similar
things. Now these four degrees of signs certainly agree with the Sacraments. For, first, the external
symbols signify and represent Christ’s body and his blood also. Second, the sign simultaneously
exhibits the thing signified, not in the sign only, but in the sacramental action by which the minister
exhibits the sign while Christ the Lord is giving the thing signified. Third, the thing signified which
is promised to the faithful generally by the word of the Gospel, is applied to each one of the faithful
through exhibition by a sign. Fourth, the same promise is sealed by the Sacrament. For this reason
[Sacraments] are not only called signs, but seals. Rom. 4:11.” My translation.
to how Heidelberg Catechism Question 66 described the sacraments as seals:

“The sacraments are holy visible signs and seals, appointed of God for this
end, that by the use thereof, he may the more fully declare and seal to us the
promise of the gospel.” The first two of Wollebius’s terms generally describe
what the sacraments show or say. The last two terms represent the personal or
applicatory elements involved in the sacraments. John Owen gave additional
evidence that Wollebius’s classifications were common when he argued that
Christ is present in the Lord’s Supper through representation, exhibition, and
“obsignation or sealing.”34 Owen subsumed application under sealing, while
Wollebius distinguished the two slightly. Such historic descriptions can greatly
help ministers in particular as they seek to make sense of sacramental language
in Reformed confessional documents.
While historical theology is insufficient for grounding systematic theology
in Scripture, it can expand contemporary reflection on and application
of Scripture. This kind of research is fruitful in light of the recent quest for
catholic retrieval through historical theology.35 It should also help us draw
clearer lines between catholic retrieval of historical ideas and the theological
transformation of Reformed theology. The church today needs to understand,
adapt, and learn from Reformed orthodoxy in prayerful submission to
Scripture aiming at the hearts of believers.
Potential for catholicity
As van Asselt suggested, study Reformed scholasticism can teach us how to

cultivate a theology that is genuinely and biblically catholic.36 The examples
provided in preceding chapters illustrate the aim of Reformed scholastic
theology to create a biblical ecumenicity by drawing from historical and
34
1850), 9:572.
35
For a recent cross-confessional survey of these attempts, see Darren Sarisky, ed., Theologies of
Retrieval: An Exploration and Appraisal (London: T&T Clark, 2017). Sarisky wrote that retrieval
theology “attempts to dig into a past era in order to open up new vistas for today Theologies of
retrieval unsettle present discussions by offering resources from beyond the current horizon with
a view toward enriching ongoing debates” (2). This represents well what the present author is
attempting to do in this concluding chapter.
36
Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011), 197.
contemporary theology. Reformed authors filtered and used this information

in the context of promoting the doctrines taught within Reformed confessional
bounds. They also illustrate a level of tolerance that was present within
confessional bounds. While this model developed in contexts differing widely
from our own, it shows that this kind of critical interaction with historic
Christian thought within the bounds of Reformed theology is both possible
and desirable. Studying Reformed scholasticism with a critical eye is one way
that Reformed churches today can potentially achieve greater unity in method
and content as they adapt and apply Reformed thought to contemporary
questions. Doing so can help offset and blunt to some degree the fragmentary
character of much of modern Reformed systematic theology. It also puts
Reformed theology back in the stream of the catholic Christian tradition as a
whole, which was one of the primary characteristics and developments of the
Reformed scholastic movement.
Conclusion
The subject of this book has been why and how to study Reformed scholasticism.
The question that this concluding chapter has sought to answer in part is what
to do with the material that students gain from historical research in this field.
This field requires developing a “Historical Point of View,” but it need not
stop there. This book has aimed to cultivate interest in Reformed scholastic
theology, to inculcate proper research methodology and writing practices, to
introduce the general characteristics of scholastic method and theology, and
to press students, historians, professors, and pastors to appropriate ideas from
their studies both for professional and for pastoral use. However, practice is
essential to learning. The ultimate goal of these studies is for readers to take
what they have learned and reflected on and to pursue the study of Reformed
scholasticism.
As the subtitle of this book indicates, these goals should help lead to
recovering the tools of Reformed theology. This is true both with regard
to historical investigation and for contemporary appropriation of historic
Reformed method and thought. The final challenge this author presents to
readers, therefore, is to apply these principles to academic historical research
and to use what they learn in their various fields of labor. Doing so will help bring
the voices of classic Reformed authors into modern theological conversations.
Perhaps in doing so, as C.S. Lewis pointed out in his inimitable way, “the
characteristic errors of one [era] may be corrected by the characteristic truths
of another.”37
37
Lewis, The Screwtape Letters, 99.
Works Cited
A’Brakel, Wilhemus. The Christian’s Reasonable Service. Edited by Joel R. Beeke.

Translated by Bartel Elshout. 4 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage
Books, 2012.
Adler, Mortimer J., and Charles Lincoln Van Doren. How to Read a Book. New York:
A Touchstone Book, 2014.
Allen, Michael, and Scott R. Swain. Christian Dogmatics: Reformed Theology for the
Church Catholic. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016.
Allen, Michael, and Scott R. Swain. Reformed Catholicity: The Promise of Retrieval for
Theology and Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2015.
Ames, William. Medulla S.S. Theologiæ, in Fine Adjuncta Est Disputatio De Fidei
Divinæ Veritate. Editio Tertia Priori Longe Correctior. Londini: Apud Robertum
Allottum, 1629.
Appleby, Joyce Oldham, Lynn Hunt, and Margaret C. Jacob. Telling the Truth about
History. New York: Norton, 1994.
Asselt, Willem J. van. “Reformed Orthodoxy: A Short History of Research.” In A
Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, edited by H. J. Selderhuis, 40:11–26. Brill’s
Companions to the Christian Tradition. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Asselt, Willem J. van. “Scholasticism Revisited: Methodological Reflections on the
Study of Seventeenth-Century Reformed Thought.” In Seeing Things Their Way,
edited by Alister Chapman, John Coffey, and Brad S. Gregory, 154–74. Notre
Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2009.
Asselt, Willem J. van. The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669). Leiden
and Boston, MA: Brill, 2001.
Asselt, Willem J. van. “The Fundamental Meaning of Theology: Archetypal and
Ectypal Theology in Seventeentt-Century Reformed Thought.” Westminster
Theological Journal 64, no. 2 (2002): 319–35.
Asselt, Willem J. van, and Eef Dekker. “Introduction.” In Reformation and
Scholasticism: An Ecumenical Enterprise, edited by Willem J. van Asselt and Eef
Dekker, 11–44. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001.
Asselt, Willem J. van, T. Theo J. Pleizier, P. L. Rouwendal, and Maarten Wisse.
Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism. Translated by Albert Gootjes. Grand
Rapids, MI.: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011.
216 Works Cited
Augustijn, Cornelis. “Wittenberga Contra Scholasticos.” In Reformation and

Scholasticism: An Ecumenical Enterprise, edited by Willem J. van Asselt and Eef
Dekker, 45–64. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001.
Bac, Martijn, and Theo Pleizier. “Reentering the Sites of Truth: Teaching Reformed
Scholasticism in the Contemporary Classroom.” In Scholasticism Reformed: Essays
in Honor of Willem J. van Asselt, edited by Maarten Wisse, Marcel Sarot, and
Willemien Otten, 14:31–54. Studies in Theology and Religion. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Backus, Irena. “G. W. Leibniz and Protestant Scholasticism in the Years 1698–1704.”
In Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard
A. Muller on the Maturation of a Theological Tradition, edited by Jordan J. Ballor,
David S. Sytsma, and Jason Zuidema, 170:679–96. Studies in the History of
Christian Traditions. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Bagchi, D. V. N. “Sic et Non: Luther and Scholasticism.” In Protestant Scholasticism:
Essays in Reassessment, edited by R. Scott Clark and Carl R. Trueman, 3–15.
Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006.
Ballor, Jordan J. Covenant, Casuality, and Law: A Study in the Theology of Wolfgang
Musculus. Vol. 3. Refo500 Academic Studies. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2012.
Ballor, Jordan J. “State, Church, and the Reformational Roots of Subsidiarity.” In The
Myth of the Reformation, edited by Peter Opitz, 9:148–59. Refo500 Academic
Studies. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013.
Ballor, Jordan J., David S. Sytsma, and Jason Zuidema, eds. Church and School
in Early Modern Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the
Maturation of a Theological Tradition. Vol. 170. Studies in the History of Christian
Traditions. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Barlow, Thomas. The Genuine Remains of That Learned Prelate Dr. Thomas Barlow,
Late Lord Bishop of Lincoln Containing Divers Discourses Theological, Philosophical,
Historical, &c., in Letters to Several Persons of Honour and Quality: To Which Is
Added the Resolution of Many Abstruse Points: As Also Directions to a Young Divine
for His Study of Divinity, and Choice of Books, &c., with Great Variety of Other
Subjects. London, 1693.
Barrett, Matthew. God’s Word Alone: The Authority of Scripture. The 5 Solas. Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2016.
Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics. Translated by John Bolt. Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Academic, 2003.
Beach, J. Mark. Christ and the Covenant: Francis Turretin’s Federal Theology as a
Defense of the Doctrine of Grace. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007.
Beck, Andreas J. Gisbertus Voetius 1589–1676 Sein Theologieverständnis Und Seine
Gotteslehre. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007.
Works Cited 217
Beck, Andreas J. “God, Creation, and Providence in Post-Reformation Reformed

Theology.” In The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 1600–1800, edited
by Ulrich L. Lehner, Richard A. Muller, and A. G. Roeber, 195–212. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2016.
Beeke, Joel R. Debated Issues in Sovereign Predestination: Early Lutheran
Predestination, Calvinian Reprobation, and Variations in Genevan Lapsarianism.
Vol. 42. Reformed Historical Theology. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
2017.
Beeke, Joel R., and Mark Jones. A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life. Grand Rapids,
MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012.
Benedict, Philip. Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002.
Beza, Theodorus. Confessio Christianae Fidei, et Eiusdem Collatio Cum Papisticis
Haeresibus (Geneva, 1560).
Beza, Theodorus. Theodori Bezae Annotationes Maiores in Novum Dn. Nostri Iesu
Christi Testamentum: In Duas Distinctae Partes, Quarum Prior Explicationem
in Quatuor Evangelistas Et Acta Apostolorum, Posterior Verò in Epistolas Et
Apocalypsin Continet: Quibus Etiam Adiuncti Sunt Indices Rerum Ac Verborum
Locupletissimi. Genevae: J. des Planches, 1594.
Bierma, Lyle D. The Covenant Theology of Caspar Olevianus. Grand Rapids, MI:
Reformation Heritage Books, 2005.
Blacketer, Raymond A. “The Man in the Black Hat: Theodore Beza and Reorientation
of Early Reformed Historiography.” In Church and School in Early Modern
Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of a
Theological Tradition, edited by Jordan J. Ballor, David S. Sytsma, and Jason
Zuidema, 170:227–41. Studies in the History of Christian Traditions. Leiden: Brill,
2013.
Boersma, Hans, and Matthew Levering, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Sacramental
Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Boston, Thomas. The Complete Works of the Late Rev. Thomas Boston, Ettrick:
Including His Memoirs. Wheaton, IL: R.O. Roberts, 1980.
Bozeman, Theodore Dwight. The Precisianist Strain: Disciplinary Religion &
Antinomian Backlash in Puritanism to 1638. Omohundro Institute of Early
American History & Culture. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,
2004.
Brink, Gijsbert van den. “Reformed Scholasticism and the Trinitarian Renaissance.”
In Scholasticism Reformed: Essays in Honour of Willem J. van Asselt, edited
by Maarten Wisse, Marcel Sarot, and Willemien Otten, 14:322–40. Studies in
Theology and Religion. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
218 Works Cited
Bruce, James E. Rights in the Law: The Importance of God’s Free Choices in the Thought
of Francis Turretin. Vol. 24. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013.
Bucanus, William. Institutiones Theolgicae, Seu, Locorum Communium Christanae
Religionis. Geneva, 1648.
Bucer, Martin. Metaphrasis Et Enarratio in Epist. D. Pauli Apostoli Ad Romanos, in
Quibus Singulatim Apostoli Omnia, Cum Argumenta, Tum Sententiae & Verba, Ad
Autoritatem Divinae Scripturae, Fidemque Ecclesiae Catholicae Tam Priscae Qum̉
Praesentis, Religios ̈ac Paul ̣fusius Excutiuntur. Basileae, 1562.
Bullinger, Heinrich. The Decades of Henry Bullinger. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1849.
Burnett, Stephen G. From Christian Hebraism to Jewish Studies: Johannes Buxtorf
(1564–1629) and Hebrew Learning in the Seventeenth Century. Studies in the
History of Christian Thought. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
Burton, Simon J. G. The Hallowing of Logic the Trinitarian Method of Richard Baxter’s
Methodus Theologiae. Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill, 2012.
Busch, Eberard. “Reformed Theology in Continental Europe.” In Cambridge Companion
to Reformed Theology, 230–47. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016.
Cajetan, Thomas. Epistolae Pauli Et Aliorum Apostolorum: Juxta Sens. Literal.
Enarratae. Acc: Actus Apostol. Comm. Ejusd. Illustr. Paris, 1540.
Cajetan, Tommaso. Commentarii Illustres Planeq́; Insignes in Quinque Mosaicos
Libros, Thomae De Vio, Caietani, Adiectis Insuper Ad Margine[m] Annotationibus
a F. Antonio Fo[n]seca Lusitano, Quibus Temporum & Locoru[m] Ratio, Tropi,
Phrases, Lociq́; Intellectu Difficiles Explicantur: Accessit Rerum Maxime Insignium
Index Copiosissimus. Paris: Apud Ioannem Paruum, 1539.
Calvin, John. Calvin’s Commentaries. 22 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated
by Ford Lewis Battles. Vol. XX–XXI. 2 vols. Library of Christian Classics.
Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1960.
Campi, Emidio. “Giovanni Diodati (1576–1649), Translator of the Bible into
Italian.” In From Zwingli to Amyraut: Exploring the Growth of European Reformed
Traditions, edited by Jon Balserak and Jim West, 43:105–22. Reformed Historical
Theology. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017.
Campi, Emidio. Shifting Patterns of Reformed Tradition. Vol. 27. Reformed Historical
Theology. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014. http://search.ebscohost.
com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=780645
Campos, Heber. Doctrine in Development: Johannes Piscator and Debates over Christ’s
Active Obedience. Reformed Historical-Theological Studies. Grand Rapids, MI:
Works Cited 219
Carlton, Charles. Archbishop William Laud. London and New York: Routledge &
Kegan Paul, 1987.
Casselli, Stephen J. Divine Rule Maintained: Anthony Burgess, Covenant Theology, and
the Place of the Law in Reformed Scholasticism. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation
Heritage Books, 2016.
Chamier, Daniel. Panstratiae Catholicae Corpus, Sive Controversarium de Religione
Adversus Pontificos Corpus. Vol. 1. 5 vols. Genevae, 1626.
Chapman, Alister, John Coffey, and Brad S. Gregory, eds. Seeing Things Their Way:
Intellectual History and the Return of Religion. Notre Dame, IN: University of
Notre Dame Press, 2009.
Cheynell, Francis. The Divine Triunity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Or, the
Blessed Doctrine of the Three Coessentiall Subsistents in the Eternall Godhead
Without Any Confusion or Division of the Distinct Subsistences or Multiplication of
the Most Single and Entire Godhead Acknowledged, Beleeved, Adored by Christians,
in Opposition to Pagans, Jewes, Mahumetans, Blasphemous and Antichristian
Hereticks, Who Say They Are Christians, but Are Not. London, 1650.
Cleveland, Christopher. Thomism in John Owen. Farnham and Burlington, VT:
Ashgate, 2013.
Cloppenburg, Johannes. Exercitationes Super Locos Communes Theologicos.
Franekerae, 1653.
Cocceius, Johannes. Collationes De Foedere Et Testamento Dei: Ad Illustrandam
Methodum & Analogian Doctrinæ Pietatis in Scripturis Traditam. Franekeræ:
Apud I. Balck, 1648.
Cocceius, Johannes. The Doctrine of the Covenant and Testament of God. Translated
by Casey Carmichael. Vol. 3. Classic Reformed Theology. Grand Rapids, MI:
Coffey, John. John Goodwin and the Puritan Revolution: Religion and Intellectual
Change in Seventeenth-Century England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2012.
Coffey, John. Politics, Religion and the British Revolutions: The Mind of Samuel
Rutherford. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Coffey, John, and Paul C. H. Lim, eds. The Cambridge Companion to Puritanism.
Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Collinson, Patrick. The Elizabethan Puritan Movement. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1967.
Cooper, Derek. “The Ecumenical Exegete: Thomas Manton’s Commentary on James
in Relation to Its Protestant Predecessors, Contemporaries, and Successors.” PhD
dissertation, Lutheran Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, 2008.
220 Works Cited
Cooper, Tim. John Owen, Richard Baxter, and the Formation of Nonconformity.
Farnham, and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011.
Cunningham, William. Theological Lectures. London: James Nisbet & Co., 1878.
Daille, Jean. A Treatise on the Right Use of the Fathers in the Decision of Controversies
Existing at This Day in Religion. Translated by Thomas Smith. London: H.G. Bohn,
1843.
Daille, Jean. De Usu Patrum Ad Ea Definienda Religionis Capita, Quae Sunt Hodie
Controversa, Libri Duo. Geneva, 1656.
Daneau, Lambert. In Petri Lombardi Episcopi Parisiensis (qui Magister Sententiarum
Appellatur) Librum Primum Sententiarum, Qui Est De Vero Deo, Essentiâ Quidem Uno:
Personis Autem Trino: Lamberti Danaei Commentarius Triplex. Unus, Ad Marginem
Ipsius Libri, in Quo Singularum Distinctionum Artificium Breviter Explicatur. Alter, Ubi
Locorum À Lombardo Prolatorum Accurata Collatio Facta Est. Tertius, Qui Censuram
Doctrinae, Methodique Lombardi, Tum Ex Ipso Dei Verbo, Tum Ex Veris Sententiarum
Scribendarum Praeceptis Habet. Genevae: Apud Eustathium Vignon, 1580.
D’Costa, Gavin. “Retrieval and Religions: Roman Catholic Christians and the
Jewish People after the Holocaust.” In Theologies of Retrieval: An Exploration and
Appraisal, edited by Darren Sarisky, 297–312. London: T&T Clark, 2017.
Denlinger, Aaron C. Omnes in Adam Ex Pacto Dei: Ambrogio Catarino’s Doctrine of
Covenantal Solidarity and Its Influence on Post-Reformation Reformed Theologians.
Vol. 8. Reformed Historical Theology. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010.
Denlinger, Aaron C. Reformed Orthodoxy in Scotland: Essays on Scottish Theology,
1560–1775. New York: T&T Clark, 2014.
Dennison, James T. Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English
Translation. 4 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008.
Dennison, James T. “The Twilight of Scholasticism: Francis Turretin and the Dawn of
the Enlightenment.” In Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment. Eugene,
OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006.
Dixon, Philip. Nice and Hot Disputes : The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Seventeenth
Century. London and New York: T&T Clark, 2003.
Durham, James. A Commentarie Upon the Book of the Revelation Wherein the Text Is
Explained, the Series of the Several Prophecies Contained in That Book, Deduced the
Periods and Succession of Times At, or About Which, These Prophecies Began to Be
and Those That Are yet to Be Fulfilled: Together with Some Practical Observations,
and Several Digressions: Delivered in Several Lectures. London, 1658.
Ellis, Brannon. Calvin, Classical Trinitarianism, and the Aseity of the Son. Oxford:
Emery, Gilles, and Matthew Levering, eds. The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity.
Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Works Cited 221
Episcopius, Simon. Antidotum Contines Pressiorem Declaratioem Propriae et

Genuine Senetentiae Quae in Synodo Nationali Dordracena Est et Stabilita.
Leiden, 1620.
Estep, William Roscoe. Renaissance and Reformation. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1995.
Farmer, Craig S. The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century: The Johannine Exegesis
of Wolfgang Musculus. Oxford Studies in Historical Theology. Oxford: Oxford
Fatio, Olivier. Méthode Et Théologie: Lambert Daneau Et Les Débuts De La Scolastique
Réformée. Genève: Droz, 1976.
Ferguson, Sinclair B. Some Pastors and Teachers: Reflecting a Biblical Vision of What
Every Minister Is Called to Be. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2017.
Fesko, J. V. Beyond Calvin: Union with Christ and Justification in Early Modern
Reformed Theology (1517–1700). Vol. 20. Reformed Historical Theology.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012.
Fesko, J. V. “Lapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dort.” In Drawn into Controversie:
Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-Century British
Puritanism, edited by Mark Jones and Michael A. G. Haykin, 17: 99–123.Reformed
Historical Theology. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011.
Fesko, J. V. The Covenant of Redemption: Origins, Development, and Reception.
2016.
Fesko, J. V. “The Doctrine of Scripture in Reformed Orthodoxy.” In A Companion to
Reformed Orthodoxy, edited by H. J. Selderhuis, 40:429–64. Brill’s Companions to
the Christian Tradition. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Frame, John. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief. Phillipsburg,
NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 2013.
Gale, Theophilus. The Court of the Gentiles, Or, a Discourse Touching the Original
of Human Literature, Both Philologie and Philosophie, from the Scriptures &
Jewish Church. in Order to a Demonstration Of, I. the Perfection of Gods Word,
and Church-Light, Ii. the Imperfection of Natures Light, and Mischief of Vain
Philosophie, Iii. the Right Use of Human Learning, and Specially, Sound Philosophie
Part I. Part I. Oxon: Printed by H. Hall, for Tho. Gilbert, 1672.
Gamble, Richard C. The Whole Counsel of God: God’s Mighty Acts in the Old
Testament. Vol. 1. 3 vols. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2009.
Garner, David B. Sons in the Son: The Riches and Reach of Adoption in Christ.
Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2016.
Genderen, J. van, and W. H Velema. Concise Reformed Dogmatics. Edited by Gerrit
Bilkes and Ed M Van Der Maas. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2008.
222 Works Cited
Gerhard, Johann. Loci Theologici Cum Pro Adstruenda Veritate Tum Pro Destruenda
Quorumvis Contradicentium Falsitate Per Theses Nervose Solide Et Copiose
Explicati. 5. 5. Edited by Johann Friedrich Cotta. 20 vols. Tubingae: Cotta, 1766.
Gill, John. A Body of Doctrinal Divinity: Or, a System of Evangelical Truths, Deduced
from the Sacred Scriptures. in Two Volumes. by John Gill … London: Printed for the
author, and sold by George Keith, 1769.
Gillespie, Patrick. The Ark of the Covenant Opened, Or, a Treatise of the Covenant of
Redemption Between God and Christ, as the Foundation of the Covenant of Grace
the Second Part, Wherein Is Proved, That There Is Such a Covenant, the Necessity
of It, the Nature, Properties, Parties Thereof, the Tenor, Articles, Subject-Matter of
Redemption, the Commands, Conditions, and Promises Annexed, the Harmony of
the Covenant of Reconciliation Made with Sinners, Wherein They Agree, Wherein
They Differ, Grounds of Comfort from the Covenant of Suretiship. London: Printed
for Thomas Pankhurst, 1677.
Gomarus, Franciscus. Syntagma Disputationum Theologicarum, in Academia
Lugduno-Batava Quarto Repetitarum. Roterodami: Impensis Ioannis Leonardi a
Berewout bibliopolae, 1615.
Goudriaan, Aza. “Descartes, Cartesianism, and Early Modern Theology.” In The
Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 1600–1800, edited by Ulrich L.
Lehner, Richard A. Muller, and A. G. Roeber, 533–49. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2016.
Goudriaan, Aza. Reformed Orthodoxy and Philosophy, 1625–1750 Gisbertus Voetius,
Petrus Van Mastricht, and Anthonius Driessen. Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill,
2006.
Goudriaan, Aza. “Theology and Philosophy.” In A Companion to Reformed
Orthodoxy, edited by H. J. Selderhuis, 27–64. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Green, Lowell C. “Melanchthon’s Relation to Scholasticism.” In Protestant
Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006.
Gribben, Crawford. John Owen and English Puritanism: Experiences of Defeat. Oxford
Studies in Historical Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
Hall, Fred P. “Influences in Luther’s Reforms.” In Church and School in Early Modern
2013.
Han, Byung Soo. Symphonia Catholica: The Merger of Patristic and Contemporary
Sources in the Theological Method of Amandus Polanus (1561–1610). Vol. 30.
Reformed Historical Theology. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015.
Works Cited 223
Haskins, Charles Homer. The Rise of the Universities. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press, 1969.
Haykin, Michael A. G., ed. The Life and Thought of John Gill (1697–1771): A
Tercentennial Appreciation. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Haykin, Michael A. G., and Mark Jones, eds. Drawn into Controversie: Reformed
Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism.
2011.
Hazlett, Ian. “Church and Church/State Relations in the Post-Reformation Reformed
Tradition.” In The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 1600–1800, edited
by Ulrich L. Lehner, Richard A. Muller, and A. G. Roeber, 242–58. Oxford: Oxford
Heidegger, Johann Heinrich. Corpus Theologiae Christianae. Vol. 1. 2 vols. Tiguri,
1732.
Heppe, Heinrich. Reformed Dogmatics: Set Out and Illustrated from the Sources.
Translated by Ernst Bizer. London: Allen, & Unwin, 1950.
Hoornbeeck, Johannes. Theologia Practica Pars 1. 2 vols. Francofurti & Lipsiae:
Bailliar, 1698.
Horton, Michael Scott. The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the
Way. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011.
Hyperius, Andreas. De Theologo, Seu, De Ratione Studii Theologici Libri IV. Basileae,
1559.
Hyperius, Andreas. Methodus Theologiae Adj. Eft. De Ejusdem Vita Et Obita Oratis
Wigandi Arthii. Basileae, 1562.
Jenkins, Gary W. “Thomas Stapleton: Loathes Calvin, Will Travel.” In Theologies of
Retrieval: An Exploration and Appraisal, edited by Darren Sarisky, 67–83. London:
T&T Clark, 2017.
Jones, Mark. Antinomianism: Reformed Theology’s Unwelcome Guest? (Phillipsburg,
NJ: P & R Publishing, 2013).
Jones, Mark. “The ‘Old’ Covenant.” In Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological
Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism, edited
by Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones, 17:183–203. Reformed Historical
Theology. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011.
Jones, Mark. Why Heaven Kissed Earth: The Christology of the Puritan Reformed
Orthodox Theologian, Thomas Goodwin (1600–1680). Vol. 13. Reformed Historical
Junius, Franciscus. A Treatise on True Theology: With the Life of Franciscus Junius.
Translated by David C Noe. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books,
2014.
224 Works Cited
Junius, Franciscus. De Theologia Vera; Ortu, Natura, Formis, Partibus, Et Modo.

Lugduni Batavorum, 1594.
Kapic, Kelly M., and Mark Jones, eds. The Ashgate Research Companion to John
Owen’s Theology. Farnham and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2012.
Kay, Brian. Trinitarian Spirituality: John Owen and the Doctrine of God in Western
Devotion. Bletchley, Milton Keynes, and Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2007.
Kelly, Douglas F. Systematic Theology Volume One: Grounded in Holy Scripture and
Understood in the Light of the Church. Vol. 1. Fearn, Ross-shire: Mentor, 2008.
Kibbe, Michael. From Topic to Thesis: A Guide to Theological Research. Downer’s
Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016.
Klauber, Martin I., ed. The Theology of the French Reformed Churches: From Henri IV
to the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. Reformed Historical-Theological Studies
. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014.
Klauber, Martin I. “Theological Transition in Geneva from Jean-Alphonse Turretin to
Jacob Vernet.” In Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment, 256–70. Eugene,
Knapp, Henry M. “Understanding the Mind of God: John Owen and Seventeenth-
Century Exegetical Methodology.” Unpublished PhD thesis, Calvin Theological
Seminary, 2002.
Kolb, Robert. “God, Creation, and Providence in Early Modern Lutheranism.” In
The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 1600–1800, edited by Ulrich L.
Lehner, Richard A. Muller, and A. G. Roeber, 298–310. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2016.
Kolb, Robert. “Pastoral Education the Wittenberg Way.” In Church and School in Early
Modern Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation
of a Theological Tradition, edited by Jordan J. Ballor, David S. Sytsma, and Jason
2013.
Kolb, Robert, Irene Dingel, and L’ubomir Batka, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Martin
Luther’s Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Lee, Brian J. Johannes Cocceius and the Exegetical Roots of Federal Theology. Reformed
Historical Theology. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008.
Lehner, Ulrich L., Richard A. Muller, and A. G. Roeber, eds. The Oxford Handbook of
Early Modern Theology, 1600–1800. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
Leigh, Edward. A Systeme or Body of Divinity Consisting of Ten Books, Wherein the
Fundamentals and Main Grounds of Religion Are Opened. London, 1654.
Leinsle, Ulrich G. Introduction to Scholastic Theology. Translated by Michael J. Miller.
Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2010.
Works Cited 225
Leppin, Volker. “Luther’s Roots in Monastic-Mystical Piety.” In The Oxford Handbook

of Martin Luther’s Theology, 49–61. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Leppin, Volker. “Luther’s Transformation of Medieval Thought: Continuity and
Discontinuity.” In The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology, 115–24.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Leslie, Andrew M. The Light of Grace: John Owen on the Authority of Scripture and
Christian Faith. Vol. 34. Reformed Historical Theology. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 2015.
Letham, Robert. “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity in Its Catholic Context.” In
The Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen’s Theology, 185–98. Farnham and
Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2012.
Levering, Matthew. Was the Reformation a Mistake?: Why Catholic Doctrine Is Not
Unbiblical. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017.
Levering, Matthew, and Gilles Emery, eds. Aristotle in Aquinas’ Theology. Oxford:
Lewis, C. S. The Screwtape Letters. New York: Touchstone Books, 1996.
Lewis, C. S. Till We Have Faces: A Myth Retold. London: Geoffrey Bles, 1956.
Lieburg, F. A. van, and Aza Goudriaan. Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619).
Leiden: Brill, 2011.
Lillback, Peter A. The Binding of God: Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant
Theology. Grand Rapids, MI, and Carlisle, Cumbria: Baker Academic and
Paternoster, 2001.
Lim, Paul Chang-Ha. Mystery Unveiled: The Crisis of the Trinity in Early Modern
England. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Lindholm, Stefan. Jerome Zanchi (1516–90) and the Analysis of Reformed Scholastic
Christology. Vol. 37. Reformed Historical Theology. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2016.
Little, Patrick. Oliver Cromwell: New Perspectives. Basingstoke and New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.
Littlejohn, W. Bradford, and Scott N. Kindred-Barnes, eds. Richard Hooker and
Reformed Orthodoxy. Vol. 40. Reformed Historical Theology. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017.
Luttikhuizen, Frances. Underground Protestantism in Sixteenth Century Spain: AMuch
Ignored Side of Spanish History. Vol. 30. Refo500 Academic Studies. Göttingen:
Maccovius, Johannes. Loci Communes Theologici. Amstelodami, 1658.
Maccovius, Johannes. Scholastic Discourse: Johannes Maccovius (1588–1644) on
Theological and Philosophical Distinctions and Rules. Apeldoorn: Instituut voor
Reformatieonderzoek, 2009.
226 Works Cited
Manton, Thomas. A Practical Commentary, or an Exposition with Notes, on the Epistle

of James. London, 1652.
Manton, Thomas. The Complete Works. London: Nisbet, 1870.
Marckius, Johannes. Compendium Theologiae Christianae Didactico Elencticum:
Immixtis Problematibus Plurimis & Quaestionibus Recentioribus Adauctum.
Amstelodami, 1696.
Marckius, Johannes. In Haggaeum, Zecharijam, et Malachiam Commentarius, Seu
Analysis Exegetica. Amsterdam, 1701.
Martin, A. Lynn. “An Irish-American Jesuit in the Madison Mafia.” In From Rome to
Zurich, Between Ignatius and Vermigli: Essays in Honor of John Patrick Donnelly,
edited by Kathleen M. Comerford, Gary W. Jenkins, and William John Torrance
Kirby, 184: 3–13. Studies in the History of Christian Traditions. Leiden: Brill, 2017.
Mastricht, Peter van. The Best Method of Preaching: The Use of Theoretical-Practical
Theology. Translated by Todd Rester. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage
Books, 2013.
Mastricht, Peter Van. Theoretico-Practica Theologia. Qua, Per Singula Capita
Theologica, Pars Exegetica, Dogmatica, Elenchtica & Practica, Perpetua Successione
Conjugantur. Trajecti ad Rhenum, & Amstelodami: Sumptibus Societatis, 1715.
McCosker, Philip, and Denys Turner, eds. The Cambridge Companion to the Summa
Theologiae. Cambridge Companions to Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge
McDonald, Suzanne. “Beholding the Glory of God in the Face of Jesus Christ:
John Owen and the ‘Reforming’ of the Beatific Vision.” In The Ashgate Research
Companion to John Owen’s Theology, 141–58. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2012.
McGoldrick, James Edward. Luther’s English Connection: The Reformation Thought
of Robert Barnes and William Tyndale. Milwaukee, WI: Northwestern Publishing
House, 1979.
McGraw, Ryan M. A Heavenly Directory: Trinitarian Piety, Public Worship, and a
Reassessment of John Owen’s Theology. Reformed Historical Theology. Göttingen:
McGraw, Ryan M. “A Review of Crawford Gribben, John Owen and English
Puritanism: Experiences of Defeat.” Westminster Theological Journal, 78, no. 2
(2016): 353–5.
McGraw, Ryan M. “A Review of Randall J. Pederson, Unity and Diversity: English
Puritans and the Puritan Reformation 1603–1689.” Calvin Theological Journal, 50,
no. 2 (2015): 307–9.
McGraw, Ryan M. “Catholic Retrieval and Theological Transformation: An
Assessment of Michael Allen and Scott R. Swain’s, Christian Dogmatics: Reformed
Works Cited 227
Theology for the Church Catholic.” Westminster Theological Journal 79, no. 1
(2017): 147–60.
McGraw, Ryan M. “Continuing Education for Ministers: A Guide for Ministers and
Congregations.” Puritan Reformed Journal 4, no. 1 (January 2012): 307–23.
McGraw, Ryan M. John Owen: Trajectories in Reformed Orthodox Theology. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2017.
McGraw, Ryan M. “Redefining Systematic Theology? A Review Article of Richard
C. Gamble’s The Whole Counsel of God: Volume 1: God’s Mighty Acts in the Old
Testament.” Mid-America Journal of Theology 23 (2012): 139–50.
McGraw, Ryan M. “Shifting Paradigms in Reformed Systematic Theology: A Review
Article of Michael Horton’s The Christian Faith: A Theology for Pilgrims on the
Way.” Puritan Reformed Journal 5, no. 2 (July 2013): 245–62.
McGraw, Ryan M. “The Threats of the Gospel: John Owen on What the Law/Gospel
Distinction Is Not.” Calvin Theological Journal 51 (2016): 79–111.
McGraw, Ryan M. “Toward a Biblical, Catholic, and Reformed Theology: An
Assessment of John Frame’s Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian
Belief.” Puritan Reformed Journal 8, no. 2 (July 2016): 197–211.
McGraw, Ryan M. “Trinitarian Doxology: Reassessing John Owen’s Contribution to
Reformed Orthodox Trinitarian Theology.” Westminster Theological Journal 77, no.
2 (Fall 2015): 293–316.
Melanchthon, Philip. Loci Communes Theologici. Basel, 1550.
Melanchthon, Philipp. Melanchthon on Christian Doctrine: Loci Communes, 1555.
Translated by Clyde Leonard Manschreck. New York: Oxford University Press,
1965.
Mentzer, Raymond A., and Bertrand Van Ruymbeke, eds. A Companion to the
Huguenots. Vol. 68. Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition. Leiden: Brill,
2016.
Merkle, Benjamin R. Defending the Trinity in the Reformed Palatinate: The Elohistae.
Oxford Theology and Religion Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2016.
Moor, Bernardinus de. Continuous Commentary on Johannes Marckius’ Didactico-
Elenctic Comendium of Christian Theology. Translated by Stephen Dilday. Vol. 1. 7
vols. Culpeper, VA: L & G Reformation Translation Center, 2014.
Mortimer, Sarah. Reason and Religion in the English Revolution: The Challenge of
Socinianism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Moser, Christian. “Reformed Orthodoxy in Switzerland.” In A Companion to
228 Works Cited
Muhling, Andreas. “Reformed High Schools in Sixteenth-Century Germany.” In A

Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, edited by H. J. Selderhuis, 40:177–93. Brill’s
Companions to the Christian Tradition. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Muller, Gerhard. “Luther’s Transformation of Medieval Thought: Discontinuity and
Continuity.” In The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology, 105–14. Oxford:
Muller, Richard A. Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed
Theology from Calvin to Perkins. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008.
Muller, Richard A. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn
Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 1985.
Muller, Richard A. Divine Will and Human Choice: Freedom, Contingency, and
Necessity in Early Modern Reformed Thought. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic,
2017.
Muller, Richard A. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development
of Reformed Orthodoxy, Ca. 1520 to Ca. 1725. 2nd ed. 4 vols. Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Academic, 2003.
Muller, Richard A. “The Covenant of Works and the Stability of Divine Law in
Seventeenth-Century Reformed Orthodoxy: A Study in the Theology of Herman
Witsius and Wilhelmus À Brakel.” Calvin Theological Journal 29, no. 1 (1994):
75–101.
Muller, Richard A. “The Problem of Protestant Scholasticism—A Review and
Definition.” In Reformation and Scholasticism: An Ecumenical Enterprise, edited by
Willem J. van Asselt and Eef Dekker, 45–64. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic,
2001.
Muller, Richard A. The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a
Theological Tradition. Oxford Studies in Historical Theology. Oxford: Oxford
Muller, Richard A. “Thomas Barlow on the Liabilities of the ‘New Philosophy’:
Perceptions of a Rebellious Ancilla in the Era of Protestant Orthodoxy.” In
Scholasticism Reformed: Essays in Honour of Willem J. Van Asselt, edited by
Maarten Wisse, Marcel Sarot, and Willemien Otten, 14:179–95. Studies in
Theology and Religion. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Mulsow, Martin, and Jan Rohls, eds. Socinianism and Arminianism: Antitrinitarians,
Calvinists, and Cultural Exchange in Seventeenth-Century Europe. Leiden and
Boston, MA: Brill, 2005.
Murdock, Graeme. “Reformed Orthodoxy in East-Central Europe.” In A Companion
to Reformed Orthodoxy, edited by H. J. Selderhuis, 40:293–321. Brill’s Companions
to the Christian Tradition. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Works Cited 229
Murphy, Francesca Aran, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Christology. New York: Oxford
Musculus, Wolfgang. Common Places of Christian Religion, Gathered by Wolfgangus
Musculus, for the Vse of Suche as Desire the Knowledge of Godly Truthe. Translated
Out of Latine into Englishe. Hereunto Are Added Two Other Treatises, Made by
the Same Author, One of Othes, and an Other of Vsurye. with a Moste Perfecte and
Plentifull Table. Translated by John Man. London: Printed by Reginalde Wolfe,
1563.
Musculus, Wolfgang. Loci Communes Sacrae Theologiae. Basel, 1567.
Neele, Adriaan C. Petrus Van Mastricht (1630–1706) Reformed Orthodoxy: Method
and Piety. Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill, 2009.
Neumann, Jeanne Marie. A Companion to Familia Romana: Based on Hans Orberg’s
Latine Disco, with Vocabulary and Grammar. 2nd ed. Newburyport, MA: Focus
Publishing, 2016.
Neumann, Jeanne Marie. Lingua Latina: A College Companion Based on Hans
Ørberg’s Latine Disco, with Vocabulary and Grammar. Newburyport, MA: Focus
Publishing, 2007.
Nimmo, Paul T., and David A. F. Fergusson. The Cambridge Companion to Reformed
Theology. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016.
Oerberg, Hans H. Lingua Latina: Per Se Illustrata, Pars 1: Familia Latina.
Newburyport, MA: Domus Latina and Focus Publishing, 1990.
Oerberg, Hans H. Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata. Pars 2. Newburyport, MA: Domus
Latina and Focus Publishing, 2003.
Opitz, Peter. “Calvin in the Context of the Swiss Reformation: Detecting the Traces.”
In Calvinus Pastor Ecclesiae Papers of the Eleventh International Congress on
Calvin Research, edited by Herman J. Selderhuis, 39:13–28. Reformed Historical
Opitz, Peter, ed. The Myth of the Reformation. Vol. 9. Refo500 Academic Studies.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013.
Owen, John. Diatriba de Iustitia Divina. Oxford, 1653.
Owen, John. The Works of John Owen, D.D. Edited by William H. Goold. 24 vols.
Edinburgh: Johnstone & Hunter, 1850.
Owen, John. Theologoumena Pantodapa, Sive, De Natura, Ortu, Progressu, Et Studio
Veræ Theologiæ, Libri Sex Quibus Etiam Origines & Processus Veri & Falsi Cultus
Religiosi, Casus & Instaurationes Ecclesiæ Illustiores Ab Ipsis Rerum Primordiis,
Enarrantur. Oxoniæ, 1661.
Pak, G. Sujin. The Judaizing Calvin: Sixteenth-Century Debates over the Messianic
Psalms. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
230 Works Cited
Parker, Eric M. “‘Saint Dionysius’: Martin Bucer’s Transformation of the Pseudo-

Areopagite.” In Theologies of Retrieval: An Exploration and Appraisal, edited by
Darren Sarisky, 121–45. London: T&T Clark, 2017.
Pederson, Randall J. Unity in Diversity: English Puritans and the Puritan Reformation,
1603–1689. Vol. 68. Brill Studies in Church History. Leiden: Brill, 2014.
Perkins, William. Catholicus Reformatus, Hoc Est, Expositio et Declaratio
Praecipiuarum Aliquot Religionis Controversiarum: Quae Ostendit, Quatenus
Ecclesiae Ex Dei Verbo Reformatae in Iis Cum Ecclesia Rom. Qualis Est Hodie Est,
Consentiunt, et Quatenus Ab Edadem Dissentiunt, Adeoque in Quibus Numquam
Ei Consentire Debent. Hanoviae, 1601.
Perkins, William. Prophetica; sive, De Sacra et Unica Ratione Concionandi, Tractatus.
Cambridge, 1602.
Perkins, William. The Arte of Prophecying, Or, a Treatise Concerning the Sacred and
Onely True Manner and Methode of Preaching. London, 1607.
Phan, Peter C. The Cambridge Companion to the Trinity. Cambridge and New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Polanus, Amandus. Analysis Libelli Prophetae Malachiae: Aliquot Praelectionibus
Genevae Proposita a Amando Polando a Polansdorf; Praemissi Sunt Duo Indices,
Adiunctae Sunt Orationes Quatuor: I. De Incarnatione Immanuelis Nostri Iesv
Christi, Ii. De Crucis Christi Scientia & Communione, Iii. De Vita & Obitu
Oecolampadii, Cui Disputatio De Primatu Papae Inserta, Iv. De Prophetia Danielis.
Basileae: Per Conradum Waldkirch, 1597.
Polanus, Amandus. Syntagma Theologiae Christianae Ab Amando Polano a
Polansdorf: Juxta Leges Ordinis Methodici Conformatum, Atque in Libros Decem
Digestum Jamque Demum in Unum Volumen Compactum, Novissime Emendatum.
Hanoviae, 1610.
Pope, Stephanie M. Cambridge Latin Course, Unit 1. New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2001.
Powell, Hunter. “October 1643: The Dissenting Brethren on the Proton Dektikon.”
In Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates within
Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism, edited by Mark Jones and Michael A. G.
Haykin, 17: 52–82. Reformed Historical Theology. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011.
Powell, Hunter. The Crisis of British Protestantism: Church Power in the Puritan
Revolution 1638-44. Politics, Culture and Society in Early Modern Britain.
Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2015.
Prideaux, John. Fasciulus Controversarium Theologicarum. London, 1649.
Quantin, Jean-Louis. The Church of England and Christian Antiquity:The Construction
of a Confessional Identity in the 17th Century. Oxford and New York: Oxford
Works Cited 231
Raalte, Theodore G. van. “Francois Lambert D’Avignon (C.a. 1487–1530): Early

Ecclesial Reform and Training for the Ministry at Marburg.” In Church and
School in Early Modern Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on
the Maturation of a Theological Tradition, 170: 81–93. Studies in the History of
Christian Traditions. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Ramus, Petrus. Commentariorum De Religione Christiana, Libri, Quatuor, Eivsdem
Vita a Theophilo Banosio Descripta. Francofvrti, 1576.
Ramus, Petrus. Scholae Dialecticae sive Animadversionum in Organum Aristotelis Libri
Viginti. Frankfurt, 1594.
Rehnman, Sebastian. “Moral Philosophy and Moral Theology in Vermigli.” In Church
and School in Early Modern Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller
on the Maturation of a Theological Tradition, edited by Jordan J. Ballor, David S.
Sytsma, and Jason Zuidema, 170:199–214. Studies in the History of Christian
Traditions. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Rehnman, Sebastian. “The Doctrine of God in Reformed Orthodoxy.” In A
Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, edited by Herman J. Selderhuis, 40:353–401.
Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Reid, Steven J. and Emma Annette Wilson, eds. Ramus, Pedagogy and the Liberal Arts:
Ramism in Brittain and the Wider World. London: Routledge, 2011.
Reuver, A. de. Sweet Communion: Trajectories of Spirituality from the Middle Ages
through the Further Reformation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007.
Reynolds, Edward. Meditations on the Fall and Rising of St. Peter. London, 1677.
Richard, Guy M. The Supremacy of God in the Theology of Samuel Rutherford. Eugene,
Ridgley, Thomas. A Body of Divinity. London, 1731.
Rivetus, Andreas. Catholicus Orthodoxus, Oppositus Catholico Papistae. Vol. 1. 3 vols.
Geneva, 1644.
Rivetus, Andreas. Criticus Sacrus, Praefixus Est Tractatus de Patrum Authoritate.
Geneva, 1626.
Rutherford, Samuel. Disputatio Scholastica de Divina Providentia. Edinburgh, 1649.
Rutherford, Samuel. Examen Arminianismi. Utrecht, 1668.
Rutherford, Samuel. The Due Right of Presbyteries. London, 1644.
Ryssen, Leonard. Francisci Turretini Ss. Theologiae Doctoris Et Professoris
Compendium Theologiae Didactico-Elencticae, Ex Theologorum Nostrorum
Institutionibus Theologicis Auctum Et Illustratum: Ut Praeter Explicationes Theticas
Et Problematicas in Controversiis Verum Statum Proponatur, “Prôton Pseudos”
Detegatur, Vera Sententia Confirmetur, Argumentis Ad Paucas Classes Revocatis,
Praecipuae Adversariorum Exceptiones Et Objectiones Diluantur, Calumniae Etiam
Adversarioru, Abstergantur. Amsterdam, 1695.
232 Works Cited
Sanders, Fred. “Back to the Trinity.” In Theologies of Retrieval: An Exploration and

Appraisal, edited by Darren Sarisky, 213–28. London: T&T Clark, 2017.
Sarisky, Darren, ed. Theologies of Retrieval: An Exploration and Appraisal. London:
T&T Clark, 2017.
Sarisky, Darren. “Tradition II: Thinking with Historical Texts—Reflections on
Theologies of Retrieval.” In Theologies of Retrieval: An Exploration and Appraisal,
edited by Darren Sarisky, 193–209. London: T&T Clark, 2017.
Sarx, Tobias. “Reformed Protestantism in France.” In A Companion to Reformed
Orthodoxy, edited by H. J. Selderhuis, 40:227–60. Brill’s Companions to the
Christian Tradition. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Scaer, David P. “Johann Gerhard’s Doctrine of the Sacraments.” In Protestant
Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment, edited by R. Scott Clark and Carl R.
Trueman. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006.
Schaefer, Paul R. The Spiritual Brotherhood: Cambridge Puritans and the Nature of
Christian Piety. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011.
Schaff, Philip. The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983.
Schortinghuis, Wilhelmus. Essential Truths in the Heart of a Christian. Edited by
James A. De Jong. Translated by Harry Boonstra and Gerrit W. Sheeres. Classics of
Reformed Spirituality. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2009.
Selderhuis, Herman J., ed. A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Selderhuis, Herman J. Calvinus Pastor Ecclesiae Papers of the Eleventh International
Congress on Calvin Research. Vol. 39. Reformed Historical Theology. Göttingen:
Selderhuis, Herman J. Martin Luther: A Spiritual Biography. Wheaton, IL: Crossway,
2017.
Sibbes, Richard. The Complete Works of Richard Sibbes. 7 vols. Edinburgh: James
Nichols, 1862.
Siecienski, A. Edward. The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy. Oxford
Studies in Historical Theology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Siedl, P. Suitbertus H. Cursus Linguae Latinae Vivae. 2nd ed. Clearwater, FL:
Editiones Familiae Sancti Hieronymi, 1998.
Sinnema, Donald. “The Attempt to Establish a Chair in Practical Theology at Leiden
University (1618–1626).” In A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, edited by H.
J. Selderhuis, 40:415–42. Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition. Leiden:
Brill, 2013.
Sinnema, Donald. “The Distinction between Scholastic and Popular: Andreas
Hyperius and Reformed Scholasticism.” In Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in
Reassessment, 127–44. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006.
Works Cited 233
Skinner, Quentin. Visions of Politics: Volume 1: Regarding Method. Cambridge and

New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Spence, Alan. Incarnation and Inspiration John Owen and the Coherence of
Christology. London and New York: T&T Clark, 2007.
Sprunger, Keith L. Dutch Puritanism a History of English and Scottish Churches of the
Netherlands in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Leiden: Brill, 1982.
Sprunger, Keith L. The Learned Doctor William Ames; Dutch Backgrounds of English
and American Puritanism. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1972.
Steinmetz, David C. Calvin in Context. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Steinmetz, D. C. “The Scholastic Calvin.” In Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in
Reassessment, 16–30. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999.
Strivens, Robert. Philip Doddridge and the Shaping of Evangelical Dissent. Ashgate
Studies in Evangelicalism. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2015.
Swain, Scott R. “Lutheran and Reformed Sacramental Theology: Seventeenth-
Nineteenth Centuries.” In The Oxford Handbook of Sacramental Theology, edited
by Hans Boersma and Matthew Levering, 362–79. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2015.
Tay, Edwin E. M. “The Priesthood of Christ in the Atonement Theology of John
Owen (1616–1683).” PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh, 2009.
Telfer, Charles K. Wrestling with Isaiah: The Exegetical Methodology of Campegius
Vitringa (1659–1722). Vol. 38. Reformed Historical Theology. Göttingen:
Thompson, Bard. Humanists and Reformers: A History of the Renaissance and
Reformation. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996.
Todd, Margo. “The Problem of Scotland’s Puritans.” In The Cambridge Companion
to Puritanism, edited by John Coffey and Paul C. H. Lim, 174–88. Cambridge:
Toon, Peter. God’s Statesman: The Life and Work of John Owen, Pastor, Educator,
Theologian. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1971.
Trueman, Carl R. Histories and Fallacies: Problems Faced in the Writing of History.
Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010.
Trueman, Carl R. John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man. Aldershot and
Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2007.
Trueman, Carl R. The Claims of Truth: John Owen’s Trinitarian Theology. Carlisle,
Cumbria: Paternoster Press, 1998.
Trueman, Carl R. “The Necessity of the Atonement.” In Drawn into Controversie:
Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-Century British
Puritanism, edited by Mark Jones and Michael A. G. Haykin, 17: 204–22.
234 Works Cited
Trueman, Carl R., and R. Scott Clark, eds. Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in
Reassessment. Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster, 1999.
Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Edited by James T. Dennison. Translated
by George Musgrave Giger. 3 vols. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1992.
Turretin, Francis. Institutio Theologiae Elencticae. Vol. 1. 3 vols. Geneva, 1679.
Twisse, William. Dissertatio de Scientia Media, Tribus Libris Absoluta. Arnheimium,
1639.
Twisse, William. The Riches of God’s Love Unto the Vessels of Mercy, Consistent with
His Absolute Hatred or Reprobation of the Vessels of Wrath, Or, An Answer unto a
Book Entitled, God’s Love unto Mankind. Oxford, 1653.
Twisse, William. Vindiciae Gratiae, Potestatis ac Providentiae Dei, hoc est, ad Examen
Libelli Perkinsiani de Praedestinationis Mode et Ordine, Institutum a Jacobo
Arminio, Responsio Scholastica. Amsterdam, 1632.
Tyacke, Nicholas. “Religious Controversy.” In A History of the University of Oxford
Volume IV: Seventeenth-Century Oxford, edited by Nicholas Tyacke, 569–620.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.
Ursinus, Zacharias, and David Pareus. Corpus Doctrinae Orthodoxae: Sive,
Catecharum Explicationum D. Zachariae Ursini Opus Absolutum D. Davidis
Parei Opera Extrema Recognitum … Adiuncta Sunt Miscellanea Catechetica …
[Genevae]: sumptibus Samuelis Crispini, 1616.
Valdes, Juan de. Dialogo de Doctrina Christiana. Mexico: Casa Unida de
Publicationes, 1946.
Van den Belt, Henk. The Authority of Scripture in Reformed Theology: Truth and Trust.
Studies in Reformed Theology. Leiden: Brill, 2014.
Van den Belt, Henk. “The Problematic Character of Sola Scriptura.” In Sola Scriptura:
Biblical and Theological Perspectives on Scripture, Authority, and Hermeneutics,
edited by Hans Burger, Arnold Huijgen, and Eric Peels, 32:38–56. Studies in
Reformed Theology. Leiden: Brill, 2017.
Van Dixhoorn, Chad B. Confessing the Faith: A Reader’s Guide to the Westminster
Confession of Faith. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2014.
Van Dixhoorn, Chad B. God’s Ambassadors: The Westminster Assembly and the
Reformation of the English Pulpit, 1643–1653. Studies on the Westminster
Assembly. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2017.
Van Dixhoorn, Chad B. The Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly,
1643–1652. 5 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Van Nieuwenhove, Rik. An Introduction to Medieval Theology. Cambridge:
Van Til, Cornelius. A Christian Theology of Knowledge. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian
and Reformed Publications, 1969.
Works Cited 235
Vandergroe, Theodorus. The Christians Only Comfort in Life and Death: An

Exposition of the Heidelberg Catechism. Edited by Joel R. Beeke. Translated by
Bartel Elshout. 2 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2016.
VanDoodewaard, William. The Marrow Controversy and Seceder Tradition: Marrow
Theology in the Associate Presbytery and Associate Synod Secession Churches of
Scotland (1733–1799). Reformed Historical-Theological Studies. Grand Rapids,
MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011.
Velde, Dolph te. “Reformed Theology and Scholasticism.” In Cambridge Companion
to Reformed Theology, edited by Paul T. Nimmo and David A. F. Ferguson, 215–29.
New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016.
Vermigli, Pietro Martire. Loci Communes. London, 1576.
Vermigli, Pietro Martire. The Common Places of the Most Famous and Renowmed
Diuine Doctor Peter Martyr: Diuided into Foure Principall Parts: With a Large
Addition of Manie Theologicall and Necessarie Discourses, Some Neuer Extant
Before. Translated and Partlie Gathered by Anthonie Marten, One of the Sewers
of Hir Maiesties Most Honourable Chamber. London: In Pater noster Rovve
[by Henry Denham and Henry Middleton] at the costs and charges of Henrie
Denham, Thomas Chard, VVilliam Broome, and Andrew Maunsell, 1583.
Vlastuin, Willem van. Be Renewed: A Theology of Personal Renewal. Vol. 26.
Vliet, Jan van. Rise of the Reformed System: The Intellectual Heritage of William Ames.
Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2013.
Voet, Gijsbert, and Johannes Hoornbeeck. Spiritual Desertion. Translated by M.
Eugene Osterhaven. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003.
Voetius, Gijsbert. Selectarum Disputationum Theologicarum Pars Prima (Quinta.
Accedunt Dissertatio Epistolica De Termino Vitæ. Exercitatio De Prognosticis
Cometarum. Antehac Seorsim Editæ). 5 vols. Ultrajecti, 1648.
Voetius, Gisbertus. Exercitia Et Bibliotheca Studiosi Theologiæ. Rheno-Trajecti: Apud
Wilhelmum Strick, 1644.
Vos, Antonie. “Reformed Orthodoxy in The Netherlands.” In A Companion to
Walaeus, A., A. Thysius, J. Polyander, and A. Rivetus. Synopsis Purioris Theologiae =
Synopsis of a Purer Theology. Edited by Henk van den Belt. Translated by Riemer
A. Faber. Vol. 1. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2015.
Walaeus, A., A. Thysius, J. Polyander, and A. Rivetus. Synopsis Purioris Theologiae =
Synopsis of a Purer Theology. Edited by Roelf T. te Velde. Translated by Riemer A.
Faber. Vol. 2. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2016.
236 Works Cited
Wallace, Dewey D. Shapers of English Calvinism, 1660–1714: Variety, Persistence, and

Transformation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Watson, Thomas. A Body of Practical Divinity, Consisting of Above One Hundred
Seventy Six Sermons on the Lesser Catechism Composed by the Reverend Assembly
of Divines at Westminster: With a Supplement of Some Sermons on Several Texts of
Scripture. by Thomas Watson, Formerly Minister at St. Stephen’s Walbrook, London.
Printed from His Own Hand-Writing. Recommended by Several Ministers to
Masters of Families and Others. London: Printed for Thomas Parkurst, at the Bible
and Three Crowns in Cheapside, near Mercers-Chappel, 1692.
Watson, Thomas. A Divine Cordial, or, The Transcendent Priviledge of Those That Love
God and Are Savingly Called. London, 1663.
Watson, Thomas. Heaven Taken by Storm, Or, the Holy Violence a Christian Is to Put
Forth in the Pursuit After Glory. London: Printed by R.W. for Tho. Parkhurst …,
1669.
Watson, Thomas. The Beatitudes. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1989.
Weber, Robert, and Roger Gryson, eds. Biblia Sacra: Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem.
Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007.
Wengert, Timothy J. Law and Gospel: Philip Melanchthon’s Debate with John Agricola
of Eisleben over Poenitentia. Carlisle, Cumbria, and Grand Rapids, MI: Paternoster
and Baker Books, 1997.
Wengert, Timothy J. “Philip Melanchthon and Wittenberg’s Reform of the
Theological Curriculum.” In Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism:
Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of a Theological Tradition,
edited by Jordan J. Ballor, David S. Sytsma, and Jason Zuidema, 170:18–33. Studies
in the History of Christian Traditions. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Wisse, Maarten, and Hugo Meijer. “Pneumatology: Tradition and Renewal.” In
A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, 40:465–518. Brill’s Companions to the
Christian Tradition. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Wisse, Maarten, Marcel Sarot, and Willemien Otten, eds. Scholasticism Reformed:
Essays in Honour of Willem J. Van Asselt. Vol. 14. Studies in Theology and
Religion. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Witsius, Herman. De Oeconomia Foederum Dei Cum Hominibus Libri Quatuor. 2
vols. Trajecti ad Rhenum: apud Franciscum Halmam, Gulielmum van de Water,
1694.
Witsius, Herman. Sacred Dissertations: On the Apostles’ Creed. Translated by Donald
Fraser. 2 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2010.
Witsius, Herman. Sacred Dissertations on the Lord’s Prayer. Edited by Joel R. Beeke.
Translated by William Pringle. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books,
2010.
Works Cited 237
Witsius, Herman. The Economy of the Covenants between God and Man. Edited by
Joel R. Beeke. Translated by William Crookshank. 2 vols. Grand Rapids, MI:
Wollebius, Johannes. Compendium Theologiæ Christianæ, Editio Ultima Prioribus
Multo Correctior. 9th ed. Cantabrigiæ, 1655.
Woolsey, Andrew A. Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought: A Study in the
Reformed Tradition to the Westminster Assembly. Reformed Historical-Theological
Studies. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012.
Yoo, Jeongmo. John Edwards (1637–1716) on Human Free Choice and Divine
Necessity: The Debate on the Relation between Divine Necessity and Human
Freedom in Late Seventeenth-Century and Early Eighteenth-Century England. Vol.
22. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013.
Zanchius, Jerome. De Tribus Elohim, Aeterno Patre, Filio, Et Spiritu Sancto, Uno
Eodemque Iehova, Libri Xiii. in Duas Distincti Partes. Pars Prior: Ad Edmundum
Grindallum, Archiepiscopum Eboracensem, Angliaeque Primatem Amplissimum. in
Qua, Tota Orthodoxa De Hoc Magno Mysterio Doctrina, Ex Sacrarum Literarum
Fontibus, Explicatur, & Confirmatur. Cum Indice Triplici. Neostadii Palatinorum,
1589.
Zuidema, Jason. “Word and Spirit in the Piety of Peter Martyr Vermigli as Seen
in His Commentaryon 1 Corinthians.” In Church and School in Early Modern
Zuidema, 170: 215–25. Studies in the History of Christian Traditions. Leiden:
Brill, 2013.
Zwingli, Ulrich. De Vera Et Falsa Religione, Commentarius. Zurich: Christoph
Froschauer, 1545.
Index
Abelard 115 44, 45, 54, 54 n.9, 54 n.16, 55, 55 n.26,

Ames, William 57 n.39, 132, 133, 157 n.20, 55 n.28, 60, 62, 73 n.11, 80, 88, 101,
185, 186, 186 n.16, 186 n.17, 189, 101 n.17, 104 n.33, 109, 109 n.59, 118,
189 n.33 124, 125, 127, 128, 128 n.23, 129, 136,
Amyraut, Moses 173, 128 n.23 142, 142 n.16, 143 n.19, 147, 147 n.34,
Anselm 115, 206 153, 153 n.2, 153 n.3, 154, 156, 156
antinomianism 32, 59, 59 n.42, 187 n.23 n.14, 156 n.17, 157, 157 n.18, 159, 160,
Aquinas, Thomas 5, 41, 102, 103, 105, 107 160 n.32, 161, 161 n.35, 161 n.36, 168,
n.50, 117, 122, 123, 125, 129, 141, 144, 170, 175, 180, 180 n.57, 210, 210 n.30
144 n.24, 147, 148, 204 Cameron, John 81, 173
Aristotle 107, 107 n.50, 108, 108 n.57, 109, Caracciolo, Galeazzo 21
110, 111, 112, 125, 126, 127, 129, 148, 210 Cartesianism 107, 113, 113 n.80, 190
Arminus, Jacobus 178 n.39
Augustine 38, 71, 102, 206 Catarino, Ambrogio 21, 32, 32 n.34, 149
Chamier, Daniel 105 n.38, 158, 158 n.27,
Ballie, Robert 29, 31 172 n.13
Barlow, Thomas 134, 134 n.49, 134 n.52 Chemnitz, Martin 174
Barth, Karl 3, 3 n.1, 76, 206 Cloppenburg, Johannes 116, 116 n.94, 158
Baxter, Richard 20, 32, 32 n.37, 47, 47 n.23, 185, 185 n.12
n.93, 56 n.29, 62, 187 Cocceius, Johannes 47, 47 n.88, 53, 53 n.2,
beatific vision 209, 210 55 n.27, 190, 190 n.38, 190 n.40
Belgic Confession 96, 191 Comrie, Alexander 192
Bellarmine, Robert 46, 97, 136, 137, 143 Cranmer, Thomas 170
Beza, Theodore 25, 46, 46 n.83, 46 n.84, Cromwell, Oliver 62, 62 n.47, 133
60, 125, 127, 127 n.23, 128, 129, 180 Cunningham, William 34, 34 n.46
Biddle, John 187
Bonaventure 103, 123 Daille, John 143, 143 n.22, 173
Boston, Thomas 48, 49 n.100 Daneau, Lambert 46, 46 n.85, 125, 127,
Brakel, Wilhelmus a 31, 31 n.28, 31 n.30, 131, 128, 128 n.26, 129, 147, 180
131 n.38, 136, 161, 161 n.36, 161 n.38, 162 Diodati, Giovanni 111, 180
n.42, 190, 190 n.36, 190 n.37, 191, 191 n.43 Dissenting Brethren 29, 29 n.24
Bucer, Martin 43, 43 n.64, 102, 102 n.19, Dort 22 n.13, 97, 98, 130 n.31, 176, 179,
142, 142 n.15, 170, 204 179 n.53, 180, 181
Bullinger, Heinrich 44, 44 n.67, 162 n.41, Durandus 102
176, 180
Burgess, Anthony 76, 76 n.21, 187 Edict of Nantes 162 n.44, 172, 173
Buxtorf, Johann 105 n.37, 181 Edward VI 170
Edwards, Jonathan 29, 47, 55, 55 n.23, 159
Cajetan, Thomaso de vio 105, 105 n.38, n.30
129, 151 n.48 Edwards, Thomas 29
Calvin, John 21, 23, 24, 24 n.16, 24 n.17, Elizabeth I 170, 174
25, 25 n.18, 25 n.19, 26, 42, 43, 43 n.63, English Civil War 28, 133
Index 239
Enlightenment 49, 98, 99, 107, 173, 179, Lombard 46, 101, 122, 123 n.8, 126, 128,
181, 181 n.65 143, 147, 149
epistemology 67, 68, 68 n.3, 69, 70, 71 n.6, London Baptist Confession 5, 98
206 Louis XIV 172, 173
Erasmus 104, 105, 124 Luther, Martin 45, 45 n.74, 54, 54 n.15, 95,
96, 96 n.1, 101, 101 n.17, 104, 104 n.36,
First Great Awakening 100 105, 108, 115 n.89, 124, 124 n.9, 124
Formula Consensus Helvetica 48, 98, 180 n.10, 124 n.11, 125, 125 n.14, 126, 126
French Revolution 99 n.16, 127, 147, 147 n.34, 153 n.3, 170
Fry, John 187 n.7, 175
Gale, Theophilus 106, 107 n.45 Maccovius, Johnannes 5 n.4, 11, 11 n.12,
Gerhard, Johannes 32, 48, 48 n.98, 101 36 n.50, 51 n.1, 112, 112 n.77, 117,
n.17, 149 117 n.99, 169, 176
Gill, John 49, 49 n.101 Manton, Thomas 24, 87, 88 n.7, 110, 110
Gillespie, Patrick 103, 103 n.30 n.65, 110 n.66, 136, 136 n.55, 151 n.48,
Gomarus, Francisus 116, 116 n.94, 178 189
Goodwin, Thomas 21, 33, 33 n.40, 55, 62, Markcius, Johannes 49, 117
134, 187, 189 Marrow Controversy 49, 49 n.100
Mastricht, Petrus van 5, 5 n.5, 21, 47,
Heidegger, Johannes 48, 48 n.96, 110 n.68, 47 n.89, 53 n.3, 116 n.93, 132, 142 n.13,
116, 116 n.96, 157 n.20, 174, 181 143 n.19, 144, 155 n.10, 155 n.11, 157
Heidelberg Catechism 45, 96, 158, 158 n.20, 185 n.9, 186, 186 n.18, 207
n.26, 174, 191 n.44, 212 Melanchthon, Philip 45, 45 n.75, 101 n.17,
Henry VIII 170 108, 125, 126, 126 n.19, 127, 127 n.21,
Hoornbeeck, Johannes 34, 34 n.43, 131, 129, 142, 153 n.3, 159
132 n.43, 179, 185 n.11 Milton, John 57 n.36, 57 n.39, 187
Hyperius, Andreas 45, 45 n.76, 98 n.10, 98 Molina, Louis de 178
n.11, 98, 110 n.68 Moor, Bernardinus de 32, 32 n.33, 34 n.42,
49, 49 n.103, 49 n.104, 101, 102, 102
Jackson, Thomas 187 n.18, 128, 128 n.28, 149, 149 n.41,
Junius, Franciscus 33 n.42, 45, 45 n.77, 209 n.22
68 n.4, 98, 98 n.10, 132, 132 n.41, 133 Mosaic covenant 18, 73
n.44, 136, 155 n.11, 156 n.12, 168, 168 Muller, Richard A. 4 n.2, 17, 19, 19 n.8,
n.4, 168 n.5, 169, 173, 178, 201 n.3, 24, 24 n.17, 25 n.18, 36 n.50, 43, 43
209 n.20 n.62, 53, 53 n.7, 54 n.14, 55, 58, 59,
77 n.23, 88, 88 n.8, 96, 96 n.2, 96 n.3,
Knox, John 127 97, 97 n.5, 97 n.8, 99, 99 n.12, 101,
101 n.17, 102 n.21, 104, 104 n.33, 104
Labadie, Jean de 189, 192 n.34, 106, 106 n.44, 108 n.55, 110, 110
Lasco, John a 175, 176 n.67, 111 n.73, 113 n.79, 115 n.89, 116
Latimer, Hugh 70 n.95, 117, 117 n.98, 117 n.100, 117
Laud, William 21, 21 n.10, 62, 62 n.48, n.101, 124, 124 n.10, 124 n.12, 126
133, 171, 171 n.9 n.16, 126 n.18, 126 n.19, 127 n.23,
Leiden Synopsis 34 n.42, 92, 109 128 n.26, 134 n.49, 137, 137 n.57, 142
Leigh, Edward 34 n.44, 47, 48 n.94, 105 n.17, 142 n.18, 143 n.19, 147, 147
n.38, 149, 149 n.42, 155 n.10, 157 n.19 n.35, 153, 153 n.2, 158 n.22, 159 n.28,
Letham, Robert 19, 19 n.6 160 n.33, 161 n.36, 162 n.41, 184 n.2,
Lewis, C. S. 43 n.63, 81, 82, 82 n.36, 197, 184 n.3, 184 n.5, 190 n.39, 192 n.46,
197 n.1, 198, 210 n.30, 214, 214 n.37 205, 205 n.6, 207
240 Index
Musculus, Wolfgang 44, 44 n.69, 44 n.70, Reconquista 177

44 n.71, 159, 162 n.41, 174, 176, 180 Reynolds, Edward 134, 185, 185 n.10
Ridgley, Thomas 49, 49 n.102
Nadere Reformatie 9, 183, 187, 189, 190, Ridley, Nicholas 69–70
191, 192 Rivetus, Andreas 143, 143 n.22, 151, 151
n.49, 153, 154 n.4, 173, 178
Olevianus, Caspar 174, 161 n.36, 161 n.39 Rutherford, Samuel 28, 28 n.23, 29, 35, 35
Owen, John 18, 18 n.4, 19, 19 n.6, 19 n.7, n.48, 47, 57, 57 n.38, 148, 162 n.43
20, 21, 27, 28, 32, 32 n.36, 33, 33 n.42, Ryssen, Leonard 48, 48 n.97, 116 n.92,
35, 35 n.48, 47, 47 n.92, 47 n.93, 54, 54 128, 128 n.28
n.10, 55, 55 n.21, 56, 56 n.29, 57, 57
n.35, 57 n.36, 58, 58 n.40, 59 n.43, 61, Scots Confession 96
61 n.44, 62, 62 n.49, 73, 73 n.11, 74, Scotus, John Duns 144, 148
79, 79 n.29, 85, 87, 89, 89 n.11, 103, Second Helvetic Confession 5, 39, 44, 97,
103 n.27, 108 n.55, 110 n.68, 115 n.87, 155 n.9, 176, 180
133, 134, 134 n.48, 135, 148, 148 n.37, Senetentiae 122, 126, 143, 149, 179 n.53
148 n.39, 171, 171 n.10, 186, 186 n.19, Skinner, Quentin 19, 19 n.5, 68 n.2, 71, 71
187, 187 n.20, 188, 189, 210 n.26, 212, n.7, 72
212 n.34 sola scirptura 139
Stancaro, Francisco 176
Pajon, Claude 173 Synopsis Purioris Theologiae 33 n.42, 92
Pareus, David 45 n.78, 158 n.27, 176 n.13, 109 n.61, 131, 131 n.34, 184 n.4
peregrinatio academica 168, 169
Perkins, William 24 n.17, 78, 112, 133, Taufin, Jean 189
150, 150 n.47, 151, 151 n.50, 156, 156 theologia unionis 209
n.13, 184 Trelcatius, Lucas 178
Petrarch 105 Trent 21, 97, 114, 136, 149
Pictet, Benedict 181 Tronchin, Theodore 180
piety 171 Trueman, Carl R. 11, 11 n.11, 26 n.20, 43
Piscator, Johannes 174, 181, 181 n.63 n.62, 47 n.92, 48 n.98, 56 n.29, 57, 57
Polanus, Amandus 33 n.42, 40, 40 n.57, 40 n.38, 70 n.5, 74, 74 n.12, 74 n.13, 75,
n.59, 45, 46, 46 n.79, 55, 77, 78 n.25, 75 n.15, 75 n.16, 75 n.17, 76 n.19, 76
110, 110 n.64, 112, 112 n.76, 114, 114 n.20, 87, 87 n.4, 87 n.5, 91 n.12, 101
n.84, 117 n.102, 132, 132 n.42, 136, 139, n.17, 108 n.55, 136 n.54, 148 n.38, 148
140 n.5, 140, 141, 142, 143, 143 n.23, n.39, 160 n.31, 187, 187 n.20, 200, 200
144, 144 n.24, 144 n.25, 146, 148, 148 n.2, 203
n.36, 155 n.7, 155 n.8, 158, 158 n.25, Turretin, Francis 30, 30 n.27, 31, 31 n.29,
181, 201 n.3, 201 n.4, 207, 209 n.23 32 n.32, 33, 33 n.41, 33 n.42, 48, 48
Powell, Hunter 29, 29 n.24, 30, 31, 31 n.31, n.96, 49, 49 n.105, 55, 78, 78 n.28, 110,
32, 32 n.32, 56, 56 n.31, 84, 84 n.1, 162 110 n.63, 110 n.68, 116, 116 n.92, 116
n.40 n.96, 128, 132, 132 n.42, 136, 139, 141,
principia 97, 119 144, 145, 145 n.26, 145 n.27, 145 n.28,
145 n.29, 146, 146 n.30, 146 n.31, 146
Ramism 9, 107, 111, 111 n.69 n.32, 157, 159 n.30, 160, 163 n.46, 168,
Ramist 45, 112, 141 169, 169 n.6, 180, 181, 181 n.65, 191,
Ramus, Peter 111, 111 n.69, 111 n.70, 111 191 n.42, 191 n.45, 203
n.71, 111 n.72, 112, 112 n.75, 113, 173, Turretin, Jean-Alphonse 49, 49 n.105, 181,
184, 185 n.8, 186, 186 n.13, 186 n.14, 163 n.46
186 n.15 Twisse, William 47, 48, 48 n.95, 148, 187
Index 241
Ursinus, Zacharias 45, 45 n.78, 158, 158 Watson, Thomas 106, 106 n.42, 157 n.20,
n.27, 174, 176 188, 188 n.30, 188 n.31
Watts, Isaac 107
Valdez, Juan de 44, 177 Westminster Assembly 22, 29, 29 n.25,
Van Asselt, Willem 10, 17 n.1, 114, 118 31, 47–8, 54, 54 n.13, 56, 63, 84, 134
n.104, 131 n.37, 134 n.49, 136 n.51, 148, 161, 161 n.36, 187 n.27
Vandergroe, Theodorus 158, 158 n.26, Westminster Confession of Faith 5, 26,
191, 191 n.44 61 n.45, 98, 112, 140, 155 n.9, 211
Vermigli, Peter Martyr 44, 44 n.68, 86 n.3, n.31
133, 147, 168, 169, 170, 180, 184, 184 Witsius, Herman 47, 47 n.90, 47 n.91, 131,
n.5, 192 n.46 161, 203
Victor, Richard St. 102, 103 Wollebius, Johannes 39, 39 n.56, 46, 46
Virgin Mary 102, 156 n.80, 78 n.27, 112, 159 n.29, 181, 211,
Voetius, Gisbertus 28, 31, 34, 46, 46 211 n.32, 211 n.33, 212
n.86, 47, 47 n.87, 53 n.3, 84, 113,
116, 116 n.93, 123 n.8, 131, 132, Zanhchius, Jerome 46
132 n.40, 134 n.52, 185 n.11, 190, Zotero 41 n.61, 91
190 n.40, 203 Zwingli, Ulrich 43, 44 n.65, 44, 162 n.41,
Vorstius, Conrad 179 180
242
243
244

Reformed Scholasticism Recovering The Tools of Reformed Theology 9780567679727 9780567679758 9780567679741 Compress

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reformed Scholasticism Recovering The Tools of Reformed Theology 9780567679727 9780567679758 9780567679741 Compress

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reformed Scholasticism

Recovering the Tools of Reformed Theology

Adjunct Professor of Doctoral Studies

BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the T&T Clark logo are

First published in Great Britain 2019

Copyright © Ryan M. McGraw, 2019

For legal purposes the Acknowledgments on p. x constitute an extension

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in

ISBN: HB: 978-0-5676-7972-7

Typeset by Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd.

1 Introduction: Why Reformed Scholasticism? 3

Part 2 Research Methodology

4 Research Methodology: Historiography and Writing Historical

Toward “seeing things their way” 71

5 Writing Historical Theology 83

Part 3 The Nature of Reformed Scholasticism: Method

6 General History and Terminology 95

7 A Theology of the Schools 121

8 A Theology in Conversation with the Entire Catholic Tradition 139

9 A Theology of Continuities and

Part 4 The Character of Reformed Scholasticism: International

10 International Catholicity 167

Part 5 Contemporary Appropriations of Reformed Scholasticism

12 What Is Next?: Personal Growth,

Works Cited 215

Scholarship is a community affair. Many more people influence the writing

Ultimately, this book exists because of my students. Numerous conversations

Introduction: Why Reformed Scholasticism?

As Karl Barth asserted famously, “The fear of scholasticism is the mark of a

Why study Reformed scholasticism?

Highlighting some of the possible benefits derived from classic Reformed

well as contemporary uses. A contextual study of Reformed scholasticism can

Who is this book for?

This book is designed primarily for English-speaking seminary students,

How does this book achieve its aims?

contemporary appropriations of Reformed scholasticism. The working thesis

Why is this book justified?

to Reformed scholasticism. His part on contemporary uses of Reformed

1. I provide extensive examples of research methodology from literature

In these ways, this author seeks to inculcate proper historical research

At a twenty-first century academic institution, students are supposedly not

This author contends that to learn from Reformed scholasticism without

The objectives used in my Reformed scholasticism course outlines summarize

1. To teach pastors and students how understand the significance of

Good history must be rooted in primary sources. One of the primary

How to choose a topic of study

Choosing a good topic will largely determine the measure of successful

Pick a topic that interests you

Answer historical questions rather than contemporary ones

Read widely in primary source literature

This observation relates to the above-noted issue of learning to ask historical

Read secondary source literature related to your topic

In developing a topic, students need to learn to think outside of the box.

Keep an open mind

Do not rely on your supervisors to choose your topic

on a European rather than an American model, since in lieu of course work

Assess the difficulty of your topic

The opening paragraphs of this chapter touched on this area in relation to

studies. On the other hand, writing on a subject such as Thomas Manton, on

How to identify primary sources

What are primary sources?

What are secondary sources?

Using primary sources to set your context

1 Introduction: Why Reformed Scholasticism? 3

Toward “seeing things their way” 71

5 Writing Historical Theology 83

6 General History and Terminology 95

7 A Theology of the Schools 121

8 A Theology in Conversation with the Entire Catholic Tradition 139

10 International Catholicity 167

Part 5 Contemporary Appropriations of Reformed Scholasticism

Works Cited 215