Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T22:02:34.027Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scholasticism Protestant and Catholic: Francis Turretin on the Object and Principles of Theology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Richard A. Muller
Richard A. Muller
Affiliation:
associate professor of historical theology in Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During the past two decades scholars have become more appreciatively aware of the medieval scholastic roots of Protestantism and have begun to gain some appreciation, albeit halting, of the scholastic form of Protestantism which dominated the Protestant universities in the seventeenth century. This awareness implies, in the first place, a development beyond the thesis advanced by Lortz and Bouyer that Protestantism was the effect of the decadent nominalist theology of the later Middle Ages. Scholars like Oberman, Hägglund, and Steinmetz have acknowledged much of the continuity but have emphasized the positive character of late medieval thought.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 55 , Issue 2 , June 1986 , pp. 193 - 205
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Lortz, Joseph, The Reformation in Germany(1941), trans. Walls, R., 2 vols. (New York, 1968), 1: 194–201;Google Scholar Lortz has continued to maintain his basic thesis but has developed a greater appreciation of Luther as a theologian; see Lortz, Joseph, “The Basic Elements of Luther's Intellectual Style,” in Catholic Scholars Dialogue with Luther, ed. Wicks, Jared (Chicago, 1970), pp. 3–33;Google Scholar and Bouyer, Louis, The Spirit and the Forms of Protestantism, trans. Littledale, A.V. (Westminster, Md., 1958), pp. 7–11.Google Scholar

2. Oberman, Heiko A., The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism, rev.ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1967),Google Scholar and Masters of the Reformation: the Emergence of a New Intellectual Climate in Europe, trans. Dennis Martin (Cambridge, 1981);Google ScholarHägglund, Bengt, Theologie und Philosophie bei Luther und in der occamistischen Tradition: Luthers Stellung zur Theorie von der doppelten Wahrheit (Lund, 1955),Google Scholar and The Background of Luther's Doctrine of Justification in Late Medieval Theology (Philadelphia, 1971)Google Scholar; Steinmetz, David Curtis, Misericordia Dei: The Theology of Johannes von Staupitz in its Late Medieval Setting (Leiden, 1968).Google Scholar

3. For example, Buescher, Gabriel, The Eucharistic Teaching of William of Ockham (Saint Bonaventure, N.Y., 1950);Google ScholarBoehner, Philotheus, Collected Articles on Ockham, ed. Buytaert, Eligius M. (Saint Bonaventure, N.Y., 1958).Google Scholar

4. Donnelly, John Patrick, Calvin and Scholasticism in Vermigli's Doctrine of Man and Grace (Leiden, 1976),Google Scholar and “Calvinist Thomism,” in Viator 7 (1976): 441–445.Google Scholar

5. For example, Fatio, Olivier, Méthode et théologie: Lambert Daneau et les débuts de la scholastique réformée (Geneva, 1976);Google ScholarScharlemann, Robert P., Thomas Aquinas and John Gerhard (New Haven, 1964).Google Scholar Typical of the older scholarship, which viewed Protestant scholasticism in term of central dogmas and the rise of rationalism, are Weber, Hans Emil, Reformation, Orthodoxie und Rationalismus, 2 vols. (Gütersloh, 1937–1940),Google Scholar and Bizer, Ernst, Frühorthodoxie und Rationalismus (Zurich, 1963).Google Scholar For further bibliography and discussion, see Muller, Richard A., “Duplex cognitio Dei in the Theology of Early Reformed Orthodoxy,” in The Sixteenth Century Journal 10 (1979): 51–61,CrossRefGoogle Scholar and “Vera Philosophia cum sacra Theologia nusquam pugnat: Keckerman on Philosophy, Theology and the Problem of Double Truth,” in The Sixteenth Century Journal 15 (1984): 341–365.Google Scholar

6. See Muller, , “Vera Philosophia,” pp. 361–365;Google ScholarScharlemann, , Thomas Aquinas and John Gerhard, pp. 15–17.Google Scholar Note also that many of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth-century systems devote considerable energy to developing a theology technically capable of refuting Bellarmine: for example, Trelcatius, Lucas, Scholastica et methodia locorum communium institutio (London, 1604),Google Scholar and Scharpius, Johannes, Cursus theologicus in quo controversiae omnes de fidei dogmatibus hoc seculo exagitatae (Geneva, 1620),Google Scholar both of which develop polemical loci following their positive statement of doctrine, chiefly against Bellarmine.

7. See Althaus, Paul, Die Prinzipien der deutschen reformierten Dogmatik im Zeitalter der aristotelischen Orthodoxie (Leizig, 1914), pp. 230–233;Google Scholar also note the direct citation of medieval theologians on these issues in Gerhart, Johannes, Loci theologici(1610–1621), ed. Preuss, (Berlin, 1863–1875), 1.11–12.Google Scholar Compare Muller, , “Vera Philosophia,” p. 349,Google Scholar n. 30.

8. For example, Polanus, Amandus, Syntagma theologiae christianae (Geneva, 1617), 1.3–4;Google ScholarScharpius, , Cursus theologicus, cols. 2–3;Google ScholarGomarus, Franciscus, Disputationes theologicae, in Opera theologica omnia (Amsterdam, 1644),Google ScholarDisp. 1.45–49. The Scotist distinction appears as a basic separation of archetypal and ectypal theology.

9. Turrettinus, Franciscus, Institutio theologiae elencticae (Geneva, 1679–1685;new ed., Edinburgh, 1847).Google Scholar To my knowledge, de Budé, Eugéne, Vie de François Turrettini, théologien Genevois, and Gerrit Keizer, François Turrettini, sa vie, ses oeuvres et le Consensus (Lausanne 1900),Google Scholar remain the only major biographies and Beardslee, John W., “Theological Development at Geneva under Francis and Jean-Alphonse Turretin” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1956),Google Scholar the only theological analysis of Turretin.

10. On the rise of scholastic philosophy within Protestantism and the influence of Zabarella and Suarez, see Weber, Emil, Die philosophische Scholastik des deutschen Protestantismus im Zeitalter der Orthodoxie (Leizig, 1907);Google ScholarWundt, Max, Die deutsche Schulphilosophie des 17. Jahrhunderts (Tübingen, 1939);Google Scholar and Petersen, Peter, Geschichte der aristotelischen Philosphie im protestantischen Deutschland (Leipzig, 1921).Google Scholar

11. Compare the previously cited works by Weber, and Bizer, with Hall, Basil, “Calvin Against the Calvinists,” in John Calvin, ed. Duffield, Gervase (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1966);Google ScholarArmstrong, Brian, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy: Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in Seventeenth Century France (Madison, 1969),Google Scholar and, on a more popular level, Rogers, Jack B. and McKim, Donald K., The Interpretation and Authority of the Bible: An Historical Approach (San Francisco, 1979), pp. 172–188Google Scholaron Turretin.

12. Burgersdijck, Francis, Institutionum logicarum libri duo (Cambridge, 1637),Google Scholar 2.20.99.

13. Institutio 1.6.1; “Systematice et Objective per modum disciplinae” or “habitualiter et subjective, per modum habitus in intellectu residentis.”

14. Compare Turretin, Institutio 1.6.3 with Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, 1–2ae, q.50, a.4; and Minges, P. Pathenuis, Ioannis Duns Scoti Doctrina Philosophica et Theologica, 2 vols. (Quaracchi, 1930), 1:465–467.Google Scholar

15. Compare Muller, , “Vera Philosophia,” pp. 163–164, 179–180, 194.Google Scholar

16. Institutio 1.6.3.

17. Ibid. 1.6.4; compare Beardslee, “Theological Development,” pp. 86–91.

18. The use and status of logical conclusions in theological argument was discussed and debated by the Protestant scholastics, typically with the assertion that the middle term of a syllogism (which forces the particular conclusion from a universal premise) must be taken from scripture; see the discussion in Punjer, Bernhard, History of the Christian Philosophy of Religion from the Reformation to Kant, trans. Hastie, W. (Edinburgh, 1887), pp. 164–166.Google Scholar The importance of the issue for doctrine is evident in the Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.6, in Schaff, Philip, Creeds of Christendom, 3 vols. (New York, 1919), 3: 603.Google Scholar

19. Institutio 1.6.5.

20. Ibid.

21. Compare Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, 1, q.1, a.2, with Baier, Johann Wilhelm, Compendium theologiae positivae (Jena, 1685),Google Scholar prolegomena, 1.3, 15 (Lutheran); and Voetius, Gisbert, Disputationum theologicarum pars prima (Utrecht, 1648),Google Scholar disp. 1 and 2 (Reformed).

22. Minges, , Ioannes Duns Scoti Doctrina, 1: 510–517,Google Scholar on the difficulty of identifying theology as scientia insofar as we do not have immediate evidence of the object of theology, God; and see ibid. 1: 508, on the distinction between theologia in se and theologia nostra.

23. Institutio 1.6.5.

24. Ibid. 1.6.7. Turretin's citations of classical authors, like his use of the scholastics, do not represent “research” into earlier sources of philosophy or theology but rather the use of a received tradition of references. The use of ancient anthologies like Stobaeus or Suidas is typical.

25. Institutio 1.7.1.

26. Ibid. Again the paradigm belongs to a received tradition: see Gerhard, , Loci theologici, 1.11–12;Google ScholarGomarus, , Disputationes, 1.45–49.Google Scholar

27. Institutio 1.7.3.

28. Compare Turretin, Institutio 1.7.2, with Limborch, Philipp, Theologia christiana adpraxin pietatis ac promotionem pacis Christianae unice directa (Amsterdam, 1734; 1st ed., 1685),Google Scholar 1.1.5, for the Remonstrant view, and Spinoza, Benedict de, A Theologico-Political Treatise, in Works of Spinoza, trans. Elwes, R.H.M., 2 vols. (New York, 1951), 1:9–10, 182–199.Google Scholar

29. Institutio 1.7.2.

30. See ibid. 1.7.6,10,14.

31. Ibid. 1.7.6.

32. Ibid. 1.5.4.

33. Turretin's polemic against excessively metaphysical theology, like Luther's assault on theologia gloriae, does of course find echoes in the very medieval perspective it attacks: Turretin's Deus noster looks very much like Scotus's theologia nostra, inasmuch as it distinguishes between God as he is in se and God as he is known to us. In addition, late medieval discussion of the obiectum theologiae took note that God is known to us as redemptor and glorificator: see Gregory, of Rimini, , Lectura super primum et secundum sententiarum, ed. Trapp, Damasus and Marcolino, Venicio (Berlin, 1981),Google Scholar bk. 1, prol., q.4, art.2, and Romanus, Aegidius, Primus sententiarum (Venice, 1521),Google Scholar bk. 1, prol., q.3. Note also Congar, Yves, A History of Theology, trans. Guthrie, Hunter (Garden City, N.J., 1968), pp. 124–125.Google Scholar

34. Institutio 1.4.5.

35. Ibid. 1.13.1.

36. Ibid. 1.13.2.

37. Ibid. 1.13.3.

38. Ibid. 1.13.4–6, 7, 13. Here again we are dealing with a standardized set of arguments: see Muller, , “Vera Philosophia,” pp. 351–352,Google Scholar for their use by Keckerman, and compare Beardslee, , “Theological Development,” pp. 78–80, 177–182.Google Scholar

39. Ibid. 1.8.3.

40. Ibid. 1.8.1.

41. Ibid. 1.8.4.

42. Ibid. 1.9.2.

43. Ibid. 1.11.3.

44. Ibid. 1.10.9, 9.9.

45. Ibid. 1.8.21.

46. Junius, Franciscus, De theologia vera (Leiden, 1594)Google Scholar and Theses theologicae (ca. 1592), in Opera theologica (Geneva, 1608),Google Scholar vol. 1, cols. 1592–1785; compare Althaus, , Die Prinzipien, pp. 230–231,Google Scholar who identifies the development as Thomist, not recognizing the parallels with Scotus.

47. Institutio 1.2.6.

48. Ibid. 1.1.7.

49. Ibid. 1.2.6–7.

50. Ibid. 1. 2.9. These paradigms again are drawn from medieval scholastic models. See, for example, Altenstaig, Johannes, Vocabularius theologiae (Hagenau, 1517),Google Scholar s.v. “Lumen,” “Lux,” and “Speculum,” citing Peirre d'Ailly, Jacobus de Valencia, Alexander of Hales, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, and Jean Gerson.

51. See the comments of Bauke, Hermann, Die Probleme der Theologie Calvins (Leipzig, 1922), pp. 22, 30–31,Google Scholar concerning the origin of the idea of central dogmas in the “deductive” and “systematic monism” of Enlightenment philosophy, rather than in the theology of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Note that Turretin does not attack Cartesianism directly but instead notes that “theological certainty” is not a “mathematical certainty”; compare Institutio 2.4.22 with the argument noted above that theology cannot be a science since it does not rest on rational evidence (1.6.5).