Abstract
This chapter illustrates ways in which Owen’s prolegomena was both standard and distinctive in Reformed theology. This chapter provides what is likely the most substantial, if potentially controversial, contribution to historical research in this volume. It contends that, in contrast to the assumptions of most scholars, both past and present, Owen’s Theologoumena Pantodapa was a large-scale work of theological prolegomena rather than “a history of theology from Adam to Christ” or a large-scale covenant theology. In addition to seeking to determine the nature of this book, this essay argues that Owen’s primary contribution to Reformed prolegomena lay in his trinitarian conceptions of true theology and the knowledge of God. This means that Theologoumena Pantodapa is less subversive to Reformed thought than some authors have assumed and more valuable in its contributions than others have realized. Such conclusions help expand our understanding of the nature and development of Reformed prolegomena.
Article Note
This chapter is based loosely on Ryan M. McGraw, “John Owen on the Study of Theology,” The Confessional Presbyterian 6 (2010): 180–195. I have heavily rewritten the original essay with fresh research and redirected its thesis.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Richard Muller defined prolegomena as, “The introductory section of a treatise or system of thought in which basic principles and premises are enunciated.… The prolegomena are also the place where the discipline of theology itself is defined.” Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1985), 248.
- 2.
This is the burden of the first volume of Richard A. Muller, 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).
- 3.
An early example is, Andreas Hyperius (1511–1564), Methodus Theologiae Adj. Eft. De Ejusdem Vita Et Obita Oratis Wigandi Arthii (Basileae, 1562).
- 4.
Gisbertus Voetius , Exercitia Et Bibliotheca Studiosi Theologiæ (Rheno-Trajecti: Apud Wilhelmum Strick, 1644).
- 5.
Campegius Vitringa , Typus Theologiae Practicae, Sive De Vita Spirituali, Eiusque Affectionibus, 1717.
- 6.
See Willem J. van Asselt ’s introduction to Franciscus Junius , A Treatise on True Theology: With the Life of Franciscus Junius , trans. David C. Noe (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014). The recent feschrift for Richard Muller traces such developments in Reformed theological education in Lutheran and Reformed orthodoxy. 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).
- 7.
For Owen’s Oxford career, see Peter Toon, God’s Statesman: The Life and Work of John Owen, Pastor, Educator, Theologian. (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1971). ADD REHNMAN’S ARTICLE.
- 8.
John Owen, Biblical Theology: The History of Theology from Adam to Christ, trans. Stephen P. Westcott (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1994), xlviii; Theologoumena Pantodapa, [22, preface not paginated]: “…non novam studiorum methodum protrudo.…” See below for the defects of this translated version as well as the corrections to the translation present throughout my Heavenly Directory. This present essay cites the English translation and the Latin text, providing corrections where needed.
- 9.
John Owen, Biblical Theology, Or, the Nature, Origin, Development, and Study of Theological Truth, in Six Books: In Which Are Examined the Origins and Progress of Both True and False Religious Worship, and the Most Notable Declensions and Revivals of the Church, from the Very Beginning of the World, trans. Stephen P. Westcott (Pittsburgh, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1994), xlv; Theologoumena Pantodapa, [18–19].
- 10.
See below.
- 11.
This material provides a partial reply to the otherwise outstanding article by Gijsbert van den Brink, who states that Reformed authors often treated the Trinity as “a relatively unimportant appendix” to their theology. 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.
- 12.
For a survey of Puritanism from various perspectives, see John Coffey and Paul C.H. Lim, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Puritanism (Cambridge, UK, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008). For a defense of treating Owen as a Puritan, see Chapter 1 of McGraw, A Heavenly Directory.
- 13.
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), 154–174.
- 14.
Stephen P. Westcott , By the Bible Alone!: John Owen’s Puritan Theology for Today’s Church (Fellsmere, FL: Reformation Media and Press, 2010), 593. This work is designed to be a popular work on Owen’s theology and it usefully illustrates the popular misconception of “Protestant scholasticism.” The author confuses scholastic method with scholastic content. Westcott contends that scholasticism inherently involves the elevation of reason above faith via the Medieval synthesis between nature and grace (602). Popular historical theology often suffers from a lack of accurate historical research coupled with scholarly rigor. Ironically, it was these very features that characterized Owen’s own theological method.
- 15.
For examples of the selective use of Scholasticism in Protestant authors see, 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), 105–114; 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), 115–124; D.V.N. Bagchi, “Sic et Non: Luther an 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,” Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment, n.d., 16–30.
- 16.
Richard A. Muller , Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Volume One: Prolegomena to Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 34–37. Also see David C. Steinmetz , “The Scholastic Calvin ,” in, Carl R. Trueman and R. Scott Clark, eds., Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment (Bletchney, UK: Paternoster, 2005), 19–21.
- 17.
Byung Soo Han, “The Academization of Reformation Teaching in Johann Heinrich Alsted (1588–1638),” 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), 284.
- 18.
Muller , PRRD, 1:41.
- 19.
This is a partial corrective to my assertions in A Heavenly Directory, where I largely follow Muller ’s analysis.
- 20.
Bernardinus de Moor , Continuous Commentary on Johannes Marckius’ Didactico-Elenctic Comendium of Christian Theology, trans. Stephen Dilday, vol. 1, 7 vols (Culpeper, VA: L & G Reformation Translation Center, 2014), 1:190, 201–202.
- 21.
de Moor , Continuous Commentary, 1:197–200.
- 22.
de Moor , Continuous Commentary, 1:197–198.
- 23.
de Moor , Continuous Commentary, 1:199–200.
- 24.
de Moor , Continuous Commentary, 1:201–202.
- 25.
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. Van Asselt here notes that orthodoxy refers to theological content while scholasticism refers to method. Such categories are helpful so long as the distinction between them is not absolute.
- 26.
Theodore G. van Raalte, “Francois Lambert D’Avignon (ca. 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), 87–92.
- 27.
For instance, see Owen’s partial use of Aristotelian fourfold causation in his popular work, Of the Mortification of Sin in Believers; The Necessity, Nature, and Means of it: With a Resolution of Sundry Cases of Conscience Thereunto Belonging, Works, 6:85. See, A Heavenly Directory, 37.
- 28.
See especially Carl R. Trueman , The Claims of Truth: John Owen’s Trinitarian Theology (Cumbria, UK: Paternoster Press, 1998), esp. 29–44, who addresses Owen’s use of Aristotle at length. In a later article, Trueman accuses those who import Aristotelian content into Protestant appropriations of him of being guilty of the “root fallacy.” Trueman , “A Small Step Toward Rationalism: The Impact of the Metaphysics of Thommaso Campanella on the Theology of Richard Baxter ,” in, Protestant Scholasticism, 188, 193. See also R. Scott Clark, “The Authority of Reason in the Latter Reformation: Scholasticism in Caspar Olevian and Antoine de le Faye,” in Protestant Scholasticism, 126. Muller consistently refers to this as a “Christian Aristotelianism.”.
- 29.
Lowell C. Green, “Melanchthon ’s Relation to Scholasticism,” in Protestant Scholasticism, 279.
- 30.
Christopher Cleveland ’s Thomism in John Owen illustrates Owen’s extensive appropriation of Aquinas ’ content in relation to his doctrine of God and Christology.
- 31.
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), 4–5.
- 32.
Owen, Biblical Theology, 271–279; Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, lib. iii, cap. 6, pp. 201–209; de Moor , Continuous Commentary on Marckius, 1:154–174.
- 33.
Herman Witsius, De Oeconomia Foederum Dei Cum Hominibus Libri Quatuor, 2 vols (Trajecti ad Rhenum: apud Franciscum Halmam, Gulielmum van de Water, 1694), [9]. Pages in the “Dedication” are unnumbered in the original text. This citation is borrowed from A Heavenly Directory, 38.
- 34.
Muller , PRRD, 1:108.
- 35.
James Dennison overstates the case that Francis Turretin ’s attempted synthesis of reason and revelation was “classical” due to its resemblance to Aquinas ’ synthesis of nature and grace. James T. Dennison, Jr., “The Twilight of Scholasticism: Francis Turretin and the Dawn of the Enlightenment,” in Protestant Scholasticism, 252. Martin I. Klauber observes more correctly the radical shift in the Reformed attitude towards reason and natural theology with the rise of the Enlightenment. This implicitly shifted how Protestants sought to establish the truth claims of Christianity apologetically. Martin I. Klauber , “Theological Transition in Geneva from Jean-Alphonse Turretin to Jacob Vernet,” in Protestant Scholasticism, 266. See also Muller , PRRD, 1:122, 141, 146, and 160ff.
- 36.
Muller , PRRD, 1:153.
- 37.
For example, throughout, John Owen, A Brief Declaration and Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity as Also of the Person and Satisfaction of Christ (London, 1669).
- 38.
Tim Cooper , John Owen, Richard Baxter , and the Formation of Nonconformity (Farnham, Surrey, England, Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011), 150.
- 39.
For a treatment of the distinction and relationship between scholastic and popular theology see Donald Sinnema, “The Distinction Between Scholastic and Popular: Andreas Hyperius and Reformed Scholasticism,” Protestant Scholasticism, 127–144.
- 40.
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.
- 41.
See Toon , 50–79 for a brief history of these debates over the role of the universities in England. For Laud’s influence at Oxford, see Charles Carlton, Archbishop William Laud (London; New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987).
- 42.
Owen, Biblical Theology, xxxiiiy; Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa [10–11].
- 43.
Owen, Biblical Theology, 607–608; Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, lib. vi, cap. 3, pp. 466–467.
- 44.
Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, 467: “…Philosophicos Christianos censemus non Theologicos Evangelicos.” For similar assertions, see de Moor , Continuous Commentary, 1:175.
- 45.
Cited in Toon , God’s Statesman, 79.
- 46.
For Goodwin , see 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).
- 47.
For a summary of Owen’s labors at Oxford, see Peter Toon , God’s Statesman: The Life and Work of John Owen (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1971), chapter 3. It is surprising that Toon only made passing reference to Theologoumena Pantodapa on p. 56, though he provides a useful discussion of the raging debates over theological education in the 1650s. This volume marks Owen’s contribution to these debates.
- 48.
Crawford Gribben , John Owen and English Puritanism: Experiences of Defeat, Oxford Studies in Historical Theology (Oxford: Ohio University Press, 2016), 213.
- 49.
Sebastian Rehnman , Divine Discourse: The Theological Methodology of John Owen (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books House, 2002), 17, fn 3. This author cites Biblical Theology with corrections from Theologoumena Pantodapa where necessary in order to make this material more accessible to English-speaking readers.
- 50.
Gribben , John Owen and English Puritanism, xii.
- 51.
Owen, Biblical Theology, xii.
- 52.
“De natura, ortu, progressu, et studio verae theologiae”.
- 53.
Franciscus Junius , De theologia vera; ortu, natura, formis, partibus, et modo. (Lugduni Batavorum, 1594).
- 54.
See McGraw, A Heavenly Directory, 38–40 for further relevant primary and secondary source material on this point.
- 55.
Ulrich Zwingli , De Vera Et Falsa Religione, Commentarius (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1545). See Junius , Treatise on True Theology, 95–96.
- 56.
Junius includes such topics throughout his Treatise on True Theology, though the covenant theme is less explicit than with Owen.
- 57.
For an analysis of Owen’s concern over the vowel points, see Andrew M. Leslie , The Light of Grace: John Owen on the Authority of Scripture and Christian Faith, vol. 34, Reformed Historical Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 213–217.
- 58.
de Moor , Continuous Commentary, 1:52.
- 59.
Owen, Biblical Theology, xlix; Theologoumena Pantodapa, [22].
- 60.
Owen, Biblical Theology, 591; Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, lib. vi., cap.1, pp. 455. The full passage reads: “Ad finem operis properamus, nondum tamen propositum affectui. Theologiam Christianam ex professo et data opera primo et paene unice ennarranduam sucsepimus. Nec Doctrina Evangelica, sid is mentis nostrae habitus quo eam amplectimur intra ratione operis, maxime nobis observabatur ane oculos. In hunc ideo locum rejecimus quae Theologiae subjectum proprium respiciunt, ad omnem quamvis peccatorum Theologiam aequae pertinentia.”
- 61.
The remainder of the translated text of the above cited paragraph differs so widely from the original that the Latin reader would be tempted to think that he is working from a different text if the introductory material and headings did not agree with the original.
- 62.
Compare to the material cited above from Junius and the introductory examples of Voetius and Vitringa . .
- 63.
de Moor , Continuous Commentary on Marckius, 1:96, 106.
- 64.
John Owen, The Works of John Owen D.D., ed., by William H. Goold (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1862), 17:2. Goold wrote a chapter-by-chapter synopsis of the Latin text of what was then volume seventeen, but as Westcott has noted, his synopsis is an elaborate summary of the work with little analysis. See Biblical Theology, 721. There are several versions of Owen’s Works. Volume seventeen of the Goold edition that contains that Latin text of Theologoumena Pantodapa.
- 65.
Carl R. Trueman , John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man (Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2007), 5.
- 66.
Gribben , John Owen and English Puritanism, 213.
- 67.
Muller , PRRD, 1:118.
- 68.
Gribben , without warrant, assumes that the structure of Theologoumena Pantodapa demonstrates decisively that Owen had begun studying Cocceius. Gribben , John Owen and English Puritanism, 214. However, readers should remember that covenant theologies always followed a historical structure prior to Cocceius and that Cocceius wrote a Loci Communes.
- 69.
This was true of major theological systems, such as Polanus , Syntagma Theologiae Christianae. This order also characterized high orthodox confessional statements, such as Westminster and Savoy.
- 70.
John Owen, Of Communion with God the Father, Sonne, and Holy Ghost, Each Person Distinctly in Love, Grace, and Consolation, Or, the Saints Fellowship with the Father, Sonne, and Holy Ghost, Unfolded (Oxford: Printed by A. Lichfield, for Tho. Robinson, 1657), 64–86, 87–132.
- 71.
For an analysis of Owen’s Hebrews commentary in relation to his theology, see John W. Tweeddale, “John Owen’s Commentary on Hebrews in Context,” in The Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen’s Theology, ed. Kelly M Kapic and Mark Jones (Farnham, Surrey, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2012), 49–64.
- 72.
Anthony Burgess , Cxlv Expository Sermons Upon the Whole 17th Chapter of the Gospel According to St. John, Or, Christs Prayer Before His Passion Explicated, and Both Practically and Polemically Improved (London, 1656); Joseph Caryl , An Exposition with Practical Observations Upon the Book of Job, 12 vols. (London, 1980).
- 73.
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).
- 74.
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: Printed for the Company of Stationers, 1658).
- 75.
Owen, Biblical Theology, xlix; Theologoumena Pantodapa, [22].
- 76.
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).
- 77.
See Chapter 3 of Dewey D. Wallace , Shapers of English Calvinism, 1660–1714: Variety, Persistence, and Transformation (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), which places Gale ’s work in its historical context. For a similar point, see Francis Turretin , Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison, trans. George Musgrave Giger (Philipsburg: P & R Publishing, 1997), 1:6.
- 78.
For an explanation of the Mosaic covenant in Owen’s thought, see McGraw, A Heavenly Directory, 156–167.
- 79.
Muller, PRRD, 1:85.
- 80.
Owen, Biblical Theology, 668–684; Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, 509–521.
- 81.
Owen, Biblical Theology, 721, “general note.”.
- 82.
Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, topic 1, question 8, pp. 1:23–27.
- 83.
Rehnman contends that Owen spoke disparagingly of Aristotle only in the context of general references to him, but that all specific citations of Aristotle in his writings have a positive connotation. Rehnman expresses surprise at Owen’s negative view of philosophy and reason in this volume in light of his later extensive use of both. His proposed solution is that Owen was simply bitter that the Puritans ultimately lost the English Civil War. This ignores the force of his extensive argumentation for his position in Theologoumena Pantodapa. It is one thing to use reason as a tool; it is another matter to use reason as a source of theology. Owen himself advocated the study of logic. Biblical Theology, 608; Theologoumena Pantodapa, 467. A better possible explanation of his position on philosophy is that his duties as Dean and Vice-Chancellor provided the occasion to reevaluate theological education. He wrote, “Adopting and relying on [Aristotelian philosophy], the scholastics, in effect, replaced the norm and faith of evangelical theology with a barbarous and pseudo-scientific ‘learning’.… Whenever they hold up their perverse and improper speculations, it is always the name of Aristotle that they shelter behind.” Biblical Theology, 676; Theologoumena Pantodapa, 516. Green’s comments about the twofold use of the term “philosophy” mentioned above are relevant here. Green, 277. Trueman adds the useful observation: “[Owen’s] use of the language of Aristotelian commentary tradition is simply indicative of the fact that he was raised and educated in a system of education with roots in the Middle Ages and the pedagogical literature of the Renaissance—indeed, given the universal acceptance of this language in the realm of intellectual life at the time, and the fact that it was used by Protestants, Catholics, Remonstrants etc., one wonders what alternative vocabulary he might reasonably be expected to have used.” Trueman , John Owen, 8.
- 84.
Owen, Biblical Theology, 675; Theologoumena Pantodapa, 515.
- 85.
Owen, Biblical Theology, 673–674; Theologoumena Pantodapa, 513. Muller notes that apologetic tactics and the use of philosophy shifted radically as Protestants engaged Enlightenment thought. Prior to this time, “The Protestant Orthodox disavowed evidentialism.” PRRD, 1:141. This does not mean that they were “fideists,” but that they relied upon the “inner logic” of their system as its own apologetic (164).
- 86.
Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, 511: “Consortio inquam Philosophiae vulgatae cum Theologiae inauspicato into, ortum suum debent systemata poene omnia Theologica, loci communes, atque id genus propositionum credibilium farragines aliae…” The translated text misses this point entirely by leaving loci communes out of the translation. Owen, Biblical Theology, 671.
- 87.
The seventeenth-century German Reformed theologian, Johan Heinrich Alsted (1588–1633), included the method of theological studies and the proper posture of students of theology in his Prolegomena as well. Muller , PRRD, I, 116.
- 88.
Johann Heinrich Heidegger , Corpus Theologiae Christianae (Tiguri, 1700).
- 89.
See J.V. Fesko , “The Antiquity of Biblical Theology,” in Lane G. Tipton and Jeffrey Waddingtom, eds., Resurrection and Eschatology: Theology in Service of the Church: Essays in Honor of Richard B. Gaffin Jr. (Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2008), 470–471.
- 90.
“The very title page of this book will demonstrate, without further explanation from me, the intention of the work I have undertaken. Clearly it attempts to map out the nature of true Theology, and maps out the course and method by which others may follow in a God-honoring method.” Owen, Biblical Theology, xiii–xiv.
- 91.
Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, 487: “Subjectum theologiae Evangeliae mentis hominis per Spiritum Sanctum renati esse definimums.” Westcott ’s translation of mentis renati as “human personality” here is unfortunate, since the phrase refers to the rebirth of the mind. Thus book six Chapter 5 is dedicated exclusively to explaining who are and who are not renati.
- 92.
Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, lib. 1, cap. 2, pp. 5–10. Compare and contrast to Leonard Rijsennius: “As a disposition (habitualiter), theology is a science (scientia). As a system (systematice), it is the doctrine of divine truth that leads to godliness and salvation of men (Tit. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:13).” Leonard Rijssen , A Summary of Elenctic Theology, trans. and introduction by J. Wesley White (unpublished ThM thesis, Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary), 1. Emphasis original.
- 93.
Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, 6: "Doctrinae autem, quae semper ntititur fundamentis quibusdam et theorematis quae rationi humanae non tantum sunt consona, sed et congnata, qualis est scientia omnis, cum mysterio omnem pure psuchon seu naturalem superante, nulla communitas esse potest. Deum enim rite cognosca non posse, nisi per Deum, omina est prolepsis.“.
- 94.
John Owen, Vindiciae Evangelicae, or the Mystery of the Gospell Vindicated, and Socinianisme Examined, in the Confutation of a Catechisme Written by J. Biddle, and the Catechisme of Valetinus Smalcius, Commonly Called the Racovian Catechism, with the Scripture from the Perverse Expositions (Oxford, 1655), 62–63.
- 95.
For a similar point in regard to the relationship between theology and reason with specific application to Socinianism, see de Moor , Continuous Commentary on Marckius, 1:230–231.
- 96.
“Videtur quod sacra doctrina non sit scientia. Omnis enim scientia procedit ex principiis per se notis. Sed sacra doctrina procedit ex articulis fidei, qui non sunt per se noti, cum non ab omnibus concedantur, non enim omnium est fides, ut dicitur II Thessalon. III. Non igitur sacra doctrina est scientia.” Thomas Aquinas , Summa Theologica (n.p.: 1274), Q. 1, Article 2, cited from corpusthomisticum.org. Aquinas added immediately that theology may be considered to be a superior science that is based on revelation from God Himself. “Et hoc modo sacra doctrina est scientia, quia procedit ex principiis notis lumine superioris scientiae, quae scilicet est scientia Dei et beatorum.”
- 97.
Polanus , Syntagma Theologiae Christianae, 9.
- 98.
Polanus , Syntagma Theologiae Christianae, 76.
- 99.
See van Asselt’s introduction to Junius , A Treatise on True Theology.
- 100.
Velde, Synopsis Purioris , 43.
- 101.
Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa 9–10.
- 102.
For example, Polanus , Syntagma Theologiae Christianae, 75.
- 103.
Junius , A Treatise on True Theology, 99–102.
- 104.
de Moor , Continuous Commentary on Marckius, 1:187.
- 105.
Polanus , Syntagma Theologiae Christianae, 79.
- 106.
Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, 5–6.
- 107.
de Moor , Continuous Commentary on Marckius, 1:187.
- 108.
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), 75. Polanus wrote, “Theologia vera, est sapientia rarum divinarum.“ Polanus , Syntagma Theologiae Christianae, 7. On the next page, he argued that, in spite of their differences, both Aquinas and Scots essentially adopted this definition as well.
- 109.
Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, 10. Westcott ’s English version differs so widely from the original text throughout this treatment that this author has abandoned making reference to it. Owen appealed to this place later, reiterating the nature of theology as spiritual wisdom. Theologoumena Pantodapa, 492.
- 110.
“Now I ask you, how is a man who simply cannot understand scriptural matters, who considers them foolishness, who cannot at all be capable of such things, be accounted as a gospel theologian? Anyone who considers otherwise is either mistaken in their thinking or they do not believe the gospel!;” “Eum autem qui res spirituales neque intellegit, neque intelligere potest, cui stultitia sunt, quarumque non est capax, non esse Theologiam Evangelicum mihi quidem videtur; Si qui sunt, qui aliter sentire se putant, non erit contentiosa nostra pagina; nam revera aliter sentiunt quam se sentire putant, aut Evangelio non credant.“ Owen, Biblical Theology, 614; Theologoumena Pantodapa, 471.
- 111.
Han, Symphonia Catholica, 92; de Moor , Continuous Commentary on Marckius, 1: 96.
- 112.
Owen, Biblical Theology, 8–9; Theologoumena Pantodapa, 6–7: “See, then, that just as mathematicians and logicians have their own demonstrations and proofs, so also our teaching is based upon demonstrations and proofs, but demonstrations and proofs of the Spirit and of power—things as far above the range of human wisdom as heaven is above the earth. Paul then goes on to add the reason and purpose of this distinction, ‘that your faith might not stand in the power of men’ (verse 5), which, naturally, it would, if theology were based upon the same criteria as the arts and sciences of human philosophers, or had similar principles, nature or purpose, ‘but in the power of God’ (God’s power making his wisdom effective in Paul’s preaching), ‘Howbeit we speak wisdom… yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of the world, that come to naught (which proves that Paul’s wisdom comes not by human erudition), but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world to our glory’ (verses 6–7).” He returned to a significant treatment of this and similar passages in Theologoumena Pantodapa, 471–472. His assertions are intimately tied to and rooted in his exegesis of Scripture. Rehnman consistently quotes from Turretin and many others as though Owen’s ideas were identical with their own. For the most part this is an accurate assumption, but it is also the likely cause for Rehnman ’s confusion over Owen’s decidedly negative views of philosophy. It is enlightening to read Theologoumena Pantodapa and the prolegomena of Turretin ’s Institutes simultaneously. Both addressed the same terminology and the same relevant passages of Scripture, but at times Owen came to radically different conclusions. Both began their works with the definition of theology, but Owen taught that if the term “theology” were retained, Scripture and not philosophy must define it, while Turretin defined theology by citing Aristotle .
- 113.
John Owen, Communion with God, in The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold (Orig. pub., NY: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1851, reprint, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1994), 2:120.
- 114.
Owen, Biblical Theology, 16–17; Theologoumena Pantodapa, 12: “Hoc ideo sensu, Theologia est Doctrina Dei se ipso, operibus suis, deque voluntate suae atque cultu, nostraque in omni statu oboedientia, et praemio, atque inobedientiam poena, ad nominis sui gloriam revelata et expressa; hoc est ipsissimum verba Dei.“ This is an example of Westcott adding phrases freely to Owen’s original text.
- 115.
Owen, Biblical Theology, 602; Theologoumena Pantodapa, 462–463: “Revelatio autem haec voluntatis divinae, a Patre Christo data, atque ab illo per Spiritum Sanctum cum Apostolis suis aliisque, in usum totius Ecclesiae communcata, Theologia est ista Evangelica, prout in abstracto sumpta doctrinam divinam denotat, quam sumus enarraturi.“.
- 116.
Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, lib. 1, cap. 2. See Muller , PRRD, 1:95ff for the Medieval and Reformed backgrounds of this question.
- 117.
For an exposition of this doctrine, see Chapter 1 in this collection of essays.
- 118.
Owen, Biblical Theology, 643; Theologoumena Pantodapa, 492. Also consider Owen’s treatment of communion with God in terms of receiving the personal revelation of each Person in the Godhead. Communion with God, Chap. 3.
- 119.
Owen, Communion with God, Works, 2:8–9, emphasis original.
- 120.
Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, 492: “Ea per gratiam Dei adjunctam sibi habet pleirophodzeian haeque parit epignosin sue vertittis agnitionem practicam; Quae Patrem in Filio revelantis; Huc enim perducimur per Christi cognitionem, in quo omnes Thesauri sapentiae et scientiae sunt absconditi.” The last part of this statement is an allusion to Col. 2:3, further highlighting Owen’s appeal to biblical language in defining theology.
- 121.
Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, 475.
- 122.
Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, 462–463.
- 123.
Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, 487.
- 124.
Owen, Biblical Theology, 636; Theologoumena Pantodapa, 487. Theology as a spiritual gift is the subject of book 6 Chap. 6. For a similar point, see de Moor , Continuous Commentary on Marckius, 1:185.
- 125.
Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, 491.
- 126.
Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, 492: “In hoc modum Sapientes, Prudentes, intelligentes sunt Renati, per communicationem Spiritus Sapientiae et Revelationis quem mundus recipere non potest.” My translation.
- 127.
Owen, Biblical Theology, 685–703; Theologoumena Pantodapa, 521–534. Westcott ’s translation of the title for this chapter is misleading, since he omits, “Theologiae, seu Scripturarum.”.
- 128.
Herman Witsius , On the Character of a True Theologian, trans. John Donaldson, ed. J. Ligon Duncan, III (Greenville, SC: Reformed Academic Press, 1994), 27. The manner in which we are exhorted to study the Scriptures in Westminster Larger Catechism question 157 approaches Owen’s description of the “true theologian” as well: “The Holy Scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very word of God, and that he only can enable us to understand them; with desire to know, believe, and obey the will of God revealed in them; with diligence, and attention to the matter and scope of them; with meditation, application, self-denial, and prayer”.
- 129.
Peter Van Mastricht would later emphasize the same point in nearly the same way in his Theoretico-Practica Theologia. For an analysis of Mastricht ’s work, see Adriaan C. Neele, Petrus van Mastricht (1630–1706: Reformed Orthodoxy: Method and Piety (Leiden: Brill, 2009).
- 130.
William Ames , The Marrow of Theology, trans. John Dykstra Eusden (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1997), 77. For the profound influence of Ames ’ definition on subsequent theologians see Muller , PRRD, 1:155. This definition was largely borrowed from Ramus and Perkins . Ibid., 113.
- 131.
Sinnema, “The Attempt to Establish a Chair in Practical Theology at Leiden University (1618–1626),” 416–417.
- 132.
Polanus , Syntagma Theologiae Christianae, 95.
- 133.
Though his formal definition of theology lacks explicit reference to the Holy Spirit, Mastricht approaches similar trinitarian emphases in his exposition of them. Mastricht , Thoretico-Practica Theologia,.
- 134.
Peter van Mastricht , Theoretico-Practica Theologia. Qua, Per Singula Capita Theologica, Pars Exegetica, Dogmatica, Elenchtica & Practica, Perpetua Successione Conjugantur (Trajecti ad Rhenum, & Amstelodami: Sumptibus Societatis, 1715), 2: “Doctrinam vivendi Dei, per Christum.”
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
McGraw, R.M. (2017). Quid Est?: Theologoumena Pantodapa and John Owen’s Trinitarian Prolegomena. In: John Owen. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60807-5_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60807-5_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-60806-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-60807-5
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)