A Translation with Introduction to A SUMMARY OF ELENCTIC THEOLOGY BY LEONARD RIJSSEN by J. Wesley White A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of GREENVILLE PRESBYTERIAN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Theology April 2009 Faculty Advisor: C. N. Willborn, PhD Second Faculty Reader: P. John Carrick, DMin Academic Dean: Benjamin Shaw, PhD Table of Contents Introduction iii Chapter 1 – Theology 1 Chapter 2 – Holy Scripture 8 Chapter 3 – God 28 Chapter 4 – The Trinity 45 Chapter 5 – God’s Decree 52 Chapter 6 – Predestination 58 Chapter 7 – Creation 66 Chapter 8 – God’s Providence 77 Chapter 9 – The Law, the Fall, and Sin 82 Chapter 10 – The Covenant of Grace 100 Chapter 11 – Christ 111 Chapter 12 – Christ’s Offices 127 Chapter 13 – Conversion and Faith 144 Chapter 14 – Justification 159 Chapter 15 – The Decalogue and Good Works 170 Chapter 16 – The Church 197 Chapter 17 – The Sacraments 222 Chapter 18 – Last Things 242 Bibliography 254 ii Introduction Leonard Rijssen (1636?-1700?)1 was a prominent Reformed Pastor and theologian who was active in the controversies of the seventeenth century theological scene in the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands. He also labored to provide summaries of theological positions for the use of Pastors and students. In Rijssen’s work A Complete Summary of Elenctic Theology and of as much Didactic Theology as is necessary (hereafter SET ), 2 we have an example of the type of work he did and a window into the seventeenth century Reformed world. In this introductory essay we wish to provide some of the background that Rijssen would have assumed in all those who read this work in the seventeenth century. The three words of the title provide the three major themes for this background study. Its theology is that of reformed orthodoxy. Its summary character provides an example of scholasticism. Its elenctic approach indicates the challenges and difficulties that Reformed theologians faced in the seventeenth century in defending their positions against many powerful opponents. After this discussion, we will look briefly at Rijssen’s life and works and then draw some conclusions from the SET and suggest its usefulness for our own day. 1 Also known as Rijssenius, Van Rijssen, Van Ryssen, Ryssen, Ryssenius, Van Riissen, Riissen, or Riissenius. In Dutch works, he is most commonly found in the index under Ryssen or Ryssenius. 2 Leonardus Rijssenius, Summa Theologiae Elencticae (Edinburgh: George Morman, 1992). iii Part 1 - Its Theology – Reformed Orthodoxy The History of Reformed Orthodoxy Though Rijssen does not use the word “orthodox” in the SET , he is clearly defending a body of Reformed orthodoxy. 3 Orthodoxy comes from Greek and means “right teaching.” The Reformed Church held to a specific doctrinal content that defined their Church and teaching over against Rome, Lutheranism, and the Radical Reformation. It is important to understand that when we refer to orthodoxy we are referring to doctrinal content and not to a method of doing theology. 4 The development of the Reformed branch of the Protestant Church begins with Huldrych Zwingli (1484-1531) and his differences with Martin Luther. 5 Zwingli labored in Zürich, and for this reason Switzerland became the center of the Reformed Churches. This became especially true under the work of Zwingli’s successor, Henry Bullinger, and the Reformed theologian of Geneva, John Calvin. From Switzerland, the Reformed Church spread to France, Scotland, England, the Netherlands, Germany, and elsewhere. 3 This is a word that was used by the Reformed theologians of the age. Turretin makes use of it in his Institutio and the word is found in Rijssen’s summary of Turretin’s work, on which see below, pp. l-lii. 4 See the same point in W.J. van Asselt, P.L. Rouwendal, et al., Inleiding in de Gereformeerde Scholastiek (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 1998), 13-14 and Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 1: Prolegomena to Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2003), 33-4. 5 See below on the Lutherans, pp. xxxvi-xxxviii. iv The era of Reformed orthodoxy extends roughly from 1560-1790. 6 It may be divided into the three eras of early (1560-1620), high (1620- 1700), and late orthodoxy (1700-1790). The 1560s were very significant for the Reformed. First, the Council of Trent was completed in 1563, which indicated Rome’s definitive rejection of the Reformation. Second, most of the Reformed Churches adopted confessions articulating their doctrinal positions in that decade: France (1559), Scotland (1560), the Netherlands (1561), Germany (1563), and Switzerland (1566). In the context of this orthodox consensus, many theologians labored to consolidate the gains of the Reformation and adapt them to the institutional contexts of national Churches and universities as well as making use of the Catholic tradition (the Medieval theologians and the Church Fathers) in a way that was adapted to the central concerns of the Reformation. We can see this work in men like Bartholmeus Keckermann (1571-1609), 7 Johann Henrich Alsted (1588-1638), 8 6 See also Muller’s discussion in Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 1:30-32. I am following the timeline set forth by Asselt and Rouwnedal in Inleiding in part for reason of simplicity. Their discussion of each of these time periods also provides a very helpful summary (see 91-162). 7 Joseph S. Freedman, “The Career and Writings of Batholomew Keckermann” in Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 141 (1997):305-364. 8 Howard Hotson, Johann Heinrich Alsted, 1588-1638: Between Renaissance, Reformation, and Universal Reform (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000). v Lambert Daneau (1530-1595), 9 William Perkins (1558-1602), 10 William Ames (1576-1633), 11 and Franciscus Junius (1545-1602). 12 To give an idea of the work of these men, we will consider briefly the work of Franciscus Junius, a leader of the Dutch Reformation. He became a Pastor of a Walloon congregation in 1565, but he fled in 1567 because of the Spanish persecution. In 1573 he went to Heidelberg to work on a translation of the Old Testament. In 1582, he went to Neustadt to serve as a professor and then back to Heidelberg in 1584. He finally returned to Holland in 1592 to serve as a professor at the University of Leyden where he died in 1602. His writings are typical of the work that these men did. He wrote Sacrorum parallelorum libri III (1585), a discussion of the New Testament’s use of the Old; a Hebrew grammar (1580); commentaries on many of the books of the Old 9 On Lambert Daneau, see the excellent book by Olivier Fatio, Methode et Théologie. Lambert Daneau et les débuts de la scholastique reformée (Genevea: Droz, 1976), and Ibid. Nihil Pulchrius Ordine: Contribution de l’Établissement de la Discipline Écclesiastique aux Pays-Bas ou Lambert Daneau aux Pays-Bas (Leiden: Brill, 1971). There is also an older work that focuses more on bibliography, Paul de Félice, Lambert Daneau de Baugency-sur-Loire : Pasteur et professeur en théologie (1530-1594) (Paris: G. Fischbacher, 1882). 10 Donald McKim, Ramism in William Perkins’ Theology (New York: Peter Lang, 1987). 11 Keith L. Sprunger, The Learned Doctor William Ames (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1972). 12 D. Franciscus Junius, Opuscula Theologica Selecta , ed. Abraham Kuyper (Amsterdam: Frederic Muller and Joannes Hermann Kruyt, 1882). Kuyper also has a preface with a description of his life. See also J. Reitsma, Franciscus Junius (Groningen: J. B. Huber, 1864). vi Testament; Animadversiones (1600), a book against Robert Bellarmine; 13 Ecclesaistici, sive de natura et administrationibus Ecclesiae Dei, libri III (1581, 1596), an influential book on Church government; a new translation of the Old Testament into Latin (published in many editions beginning in 1575) with Emanuel Tremellius (1510-1580); as well as various philological and historical works. 14 From this small sample of Junius’ works, we can see how these men attempted to take all of the intellectual elements of the Christian tradition from Church organization to translation of the Bible to comments on the Bible and recast them in light of the work of the Reformation. 15 The second major era of Reformed orthodoxy is the era of high orthodoxy from 1620-1700. The beginning of this era is marked by the completion of the Synod of Dort which brought about a clearer definition of Reformed orthodoxy. As J.I. Good remarks, “The canons of Dort had very much the same effect on the Reformed Church that the Formula of Concord had on the Lutheran Church. They crystallized its theology and brought out most clearly its definitions and logical relations.” 16 It is toward the end of this period that Rijssen wrote his SET , and it is 13 On Robert Bellarmine, see below on the section on Rome, xxx-xxxv. 14 See Kuyper’s list in Junius, Opuscula , pp. xii-xvi. 15 See Fatio, Methode et Théologie . 16 James I. Good, The Origin of the Reformed Churches in Germany (1520-1620) (Electronic Version: The Synod of the Reformed Churches of the United States, 2004), 364. vii illustrative of this period. As Richard Muller notes, “In the high orthodox period, beginning in the 1640s with thinkers like Cloppenburg, Hoornbeeck, and Wendelin, the polemical or controversial element begins to pervade all the loci.” 17 He notes that these writers expanded on the propositions of the earlier theologians by adding controversies and extended discussions of these doctrines. Rijssen provides an excellent example of this, as Muller also notes: “This appears quite clearly in Rijssen’s Summa theologiae , wherein doctrine is stated in neatly numbered propositions between which the related controversies are argued and resolved.” 18 This came about not because the Reformed were particularly fond of fighting but more because of the intense struggle that had to be waged against determined and able opponents of Reformed doctrine in the Socinian, Remonstrant, Lutheran, and Romanist camps, as we shall see below.