^{page 352 note 1} Among the especially significant publications in this connexion are the extensive writings of Perry Miller on Puritan thought in New England; the republication of Heppe's, HeinrichReformed Dogmatics set out and illustrated from the sources, revised and edited by Bizer, Ernst, English translation by Thomson, G. T. (George Allen and Unwin Ltd., London, 1950)Google Scholar; the treatment of old Protestant theology in Hirsch, Emanuel, Geschichte der Neuen Evangelischen Theologie im Zusammenhang mit den allgemeinen Bewegungen des europaïschen Denkens. Bd. I (C. Bertelsmann, Gütersloh, 1949)Google Scholar; and Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics, where he shows the many suggestive insights which the Federal theology offers to the Church today. Recent articles contributing to our understanding of the meaning and relevance of federalism include Trinterud, L. J., ‘The Origins of Puritanism’, Church History, XX (1951), pp. 37–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Niebuhr, H. Richard, ‘The Idea of Covenant and American Democracy’, Church History, XXIII (1954), pp. 126–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Emerson, Everett H., ‘Calvin and Covenant Theology’, Church History, XXV (1956), pp. 136–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 353 note 1} For example, see Outler, Albert C., ‘The Reformation and Classical Protestantism’, in The Vitality of the Christian Tradition (Harper and Brothers, New York and London, 1944)Google Scholar. He describes the Reformed and Lutheran thought of the seventeenth century exclusively as ‘a new Protestant scholasticism, far less imaginative and intellectually curious than its medieval prototype’ and speaks further of ‘this obscurantist scholasticism’ (p. 135).

^{page 353 note 2} This error mars the generally excellent work of Miller, Perry. For example, see The New England Mind; the Seventeenth Century (The Macmillan Company, New York, 1939), pp. 502–503Google Scholar; Jonathan Edwards (W. Sloane Associates, New York, 1949)Google Scholar, passim; Errand into the Wilderness (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1956), pp. 48–98Google Scholar. Unfortunately, some scholars have followed Miller in this mistaken understanding of federalism.

^{page 353 note 3} Cocceius was born in 1603 into a very strict and devout Reformed household of Bremen. He studied at the Gymnasium Illustre in his native city and at the Academy in Franeker. Subsequently, he taught at Bremen (1630–6), at Franeker (1636–50), and at Leyden (1650–69). He died in Leyden in 1669.

His son Cocceius, J. H. edited collections of his work under the title Opera Omnia Theologica, Exegetica, Didaclica, Polemica, Philologica. First edition. Eight volumes folio (J. A. Someren, Amsterdam, 1673–1675)Google Scholar; second edition, eight volumes folio (B. Ch. Wustius, Frankfurt-am-Main, 1689); third edition, ten volumes folio (P. and J. Blaev, Amsterdam, 1701). To the third edition was added Opera Anecdota Theologica et Philologica, two volumes folio. Supplement to third edition (Amsterdam, 1706). References here will be drawn from the second edition.

^{page 354 note 1} Preface to Opera Omnia, p. 4.

^{page 355 note 1} First edition published in 1648, subsequent editions in 1653 and 1660. Referred to hereafter as Foed.

^{page 355 note 2} Quoted in ‘Coccejus’, article in Biographisch Woordenboek van Protestantsche Godgeleerden in Nederland. Edited by De Bie, J. P. and Loosjes, J. (Martinius Nijhoff, 'S-Gravenhave n.d.)Google Scholar, Dl. II, blz. 141. Referred to hereafter as Biographisch.

^{page 356 note 1} Cogitationes de apocalypsi S. Johannis theologi, Praefatio.

^{page 356 note 2} Cited in Sepp, Christian, Het Godgeleerd Onderwijs in Nederland gedurende 16e en 17e Eeuw. Twee Deelen. (Breuk and Smits, Leiden, 1874.) Dl. II, blz. 65.Google Scholar

^{page 356 note 3} Comnuntarius in epistolam Pauli aposloli ad Romanos, Praefatio, XXXV.

^{page 356 note 4} ibid., XXXIV, XXXVI.

^{page 356 note 5} Iken, J. F., ‘Die Brüder Gerhard und Johannes Coch (Cocceius) in Bremen’, Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für niedersachsische Kirchengeschichte, III (Albert Limbach, Braunschweig, 1898), S. 198.Google Scholar

^{page 356 note 6} Ebrard, A., ‘Johannes Cocceius’, in A Religious Encyclopaedia: or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology. Based on the Real-Encyklopädie of Herzog, Plitt and Hauck. Edited by Schaff, Philip (Funk and Wagnalls, New York, 1891), vol. I, p. 503Google Scholar. Referred to hereafter as S-H. See also Cocceius’ Preface to Foed.

^{page 356 note 7} See Summa theologiae ex scripturis repetita, VI.48–51. This work will be referred to hereafter as S.T.

^{page 357 note 1} Maronier, J. H., Geschiedenis van het Protestantism van den MunsUrschen vrede tot de Fransche Revolutie. Twee Deelen. (Leiden, 1897.) Dl. II, Blz. 9.Google Scholar

^{page 357 note 2} Biographisch, Dl. II, biz. 129.

^{page 357 note 3} This theme is developed in S.T., Locus Primus, De Sacra Scriptura. See esp. S.T., II.1–3.

^{page 357 note 4} S.T., I.I. It is of interest to note that Karl Barth directs our attention to this passage at the very beginning of his Church Dogmatics, I.I. The Doctrine of the Word of God, translated by Thomson, G. T. (T. and T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1936), p. 1. Referred to hereafter as CD.Google Scholar

^{page 358 note 1} Aphorismi per universam theologiam prolixiores. II. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8. See also S.T., II. 1 sqq.

^{page 358 note 2} Schrenk, Gottlob, Gottesreich und Bund im älteren Protestantismus, vornekmlich Johannes Coccejus (C. Bertelsmann, Gütersloh, 1923), S. 14.Google Scholar

^{page 358 note 3} Quoted in Biographisch, II.140.

^{page 358 note 4} S.T., XIV:13, 16.

^{page 359 note 1} Preface to Foed.

^{page 359 note 2} Preface to S. T.; S. T, VI.51.

^{page 359 note 3} S.T., I.8. Karl Barth (CD., I.I, p. 219) sees clearly the implications of this passage when he says that Cocceius and others ‘were perfectly aware that there is nothing in a “non-existential” theology’.

^{page 360 note 1} This still appears to be true even if Cocceius himself, according to our standards, seems to violate it at times, as in his commentary on Revelation. See Schrenk, op. cit., S. 335ff, and Hirsch, op. cit., I, S. 237–43.

^{page 361 note 1} Preface to Foed.

^{page 361 note 2} See Schrenk, op. cit., S. 15, and the Commentaries of Cocceius on Ephesians, 1.118, 122, 137, 138; on 2 Corinthians, 10.42; and on 1 Timothy, 4.63.

^{page 361 note 3} The following sketch of the system of covenants is drawn from Foed., though additional light is thrown on the subject in S.T., the Considerations de ultima Mosis ad Deuteronomii capita sex postrema: confirmandae atque illustrandae religioni Christianas and elsewhere.

^{page 363 note 1} Here again we shall draw primarily upon Foed.

^{page 365 note 1} See Fisher, George Park, History of Christian Doctrine (Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1896), pp. 283–284.Google Scholar

^{page 365 note 2} van der Flier, Albertus, De Johanne Coccejo Anti-scholaslico (Kemink et Filius, Trajecti ad Rhenum, 1859), pp. 19–20.Google Scholar

^{page 365 note 3} For example, see Willey, Basil, The Seventeenth Century Background; Studies in the Thought of the Age in Relation to Poetry and Religion (Chatto and Windus, London, 1934) pp. 17ffGoogle Scholar; de Wulf, Maurice, article in Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, vol. XIII, pp. 570–581Google Scholar; George Park Fisher, op. cit., pp. 212, 347; and Dillenberger, John and Welch, Claude, Protestant Christianity, Interpreted through Its Development (Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1954), pp. 97–98Google Scholar. Each of these sources uses the term scholasticism in a somewhat different way.

^{page 366 note 1} op. cit., pp. 39–41.

^{page 366 note 2} Epistle 91 to Johannes Martinus.

^{page 366 note 3} Dorner, J. A., History of Protestant Theology, translated by Robson, George and Taylor, Sophia, two volumes (T. and T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1871), vol. II, p. 33.Google Scholar

^{page 366 note 4} Aphorismi per universam theologiam breviores, I.20.

^{page 367 note 1} van der Flier, op. cit., p. 63; cf. S.T., VI.81.

^{page 367 note 2} S.T., XLVI.6.

^{page 367 note 3} For a discussion of this controversy, see van der Flier, op. cit., p. 170, and Biographisch, Dl. II, blz. 130 vlg.

^{page 368 note 1} ‘The Language of the Old Testament’, in The Interpreter's Bible, in twelve volumes (Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, New York and Nashville, 1952), vol. I, p. 229.Google Scholar

^{page 368 note 2} op. cit., S. VII.

^{page 369 note 1} S-H., I.503.

^{page 369 note 2} Quoted in Hagenbach, K. R., A Textbook of the History of Doctrines. Two volumes (Sheldon and Company, New York, 1869), vol. II, p. 173.Google Scholar

^{page 369 note 3} Samuel Terrien, ‘History of the Interpretation of the Bible. III. Modern Period’, in The Interpreter's Bible, I.130. That it was done ‘unwittingly’ is questionable.

^{page 369 note 4} Ritschl, Albrecht, Geschichte its Pietismus, Drei Bände (Adolph Marcus, Bonn, 1880–1886), Bd. I, S. 136–7.Google Scholar

^{page 370 note 1} For an incisive criticism of Cocceian federalism, see Barth, C..D.IV.I, pp. 54–66. Comments of the present writer on Barth's evaluation of Cocceius must be reserved for another time. Such comments must indicate Barth's dependence upon Cocceius as well as the differences between these two important theologians.