Patristics And Reformed Orthodoxy: Some Brief Notes and Proposals Carl Trueman Carl Trueman is Academic Dean The renaissance of studies in Reformation John Owen and the Patristics and Professor of Historical Theology and Post-Reformation Protestant theology At the outset, we should note that the and Church History at Westminster over the last three decades has helped standard category of patristics was not Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, to put to death a number of caricatures, one that the Reformed Orthodox would Pennsylvania. Previously, he served as dogmatic and methodological, which had have recognized. The standard histori- Lecturer in Theology at the University of been perpetuated by the older traditions cal division with which we now operate Nottingham and as Editor of Themelios. of scholarship. Foremost among these (patristic, medieval, Reformation, and He has written numerous articles and was the idea that Reformed Orthodoxy post-Reformation/modern) are of later is the author or editor of a number of was increasingly driven by a speculative vintage. A writer such as Owen thought books, including The Wages of Spin: metaphysical principle, specifically that rather in terms of earlier and later writers, Critical Writings on Historical and of predestination, and that the older dog- and of earlier and later schoolmen. Nev- Contemporary Evangelicalism (Mentor, matics had no interest in biblical exegesis, ertheless, when we examine Reformed 2005) and John Owen: Reformed preferring instead to do theology via Orthodoxy in the light of our later tax- 1 Catholic Renaissance Man (Ashgate, proof-texting and crude dogmatism. onomy, it is very clear that what we refer 2007). While the overturning of these old mis- to as patristic authors played a significant conceptions is important, it should also be role in the theological construction of Ref- noted that a further aspect of the reassess- ormation and post-Reformation writers. ment of Protestant Orthodoxy has been an The empirical evidence for this is easy emphasis upon its essential catholicity: to find. The posthumous auction catalog Reformed Orthodoxy did not represent a of Owen’s library is replete with patristic break with the past, either in terms of con- texts, indicating the importance that these tent or even its own self-understanding; foundational theological writers had for rather, its exponents operated within him.3 Clearly his library contained all the a framework where the significance of standard patristic authors on key topics the theological, exegetical, and polemi- such as Christology, Trinitarianism, grace cal labors of previous generations were (Augustine, Athanasius, Cyril, Basil, etc.), assumed as dialogue partners in the as well as numerous other, perhaps more contemporary exposition of the Chris- obscure writers: Johannes Climacus, tian faith. Indeed, Reformed Orthodoxy Gregory Thaumaturgus, etc. The hold- was, in a very important sense, catholic ings are not resticted to Latin or Greek in terms of both sources and intention, fathers, either, with Syriac authors also as will be clear from this discussion of being represented. Of course, the mere John Owen, an outstanding, yet in many possession of a book does not indicate respects entirely typical, theologian of that Owen read it, but the constant refer- the Reformed Orthodox tradition.2 ences throughout his works to patristic authors, and his ease with classical and Ancient Near Eastern languages, would 52 suggest that we can take the library cata- further research. For example, when we log as representative of his reading and come to examine the actual substantive his scholarly interests. impact of patristic writing on Owen’s Indeed, that this is the case, and is theology, perhaps the most obvious area is indeed typical of Reformed Orthodoxy, that of the language of polemic. No matter is evidenced by the recommended read- what the theological controversy, Owen ing list for theological students that was is able to relate the battles of Reformed written by Thomas Barlow, Reformed Christianity in the seventeenth century theologian, conformist Bishop of Lincoln to parallel struggles in the early church. under the Restoration, and Owen’s Oxford Thus, while Roman Catholicism is typi- tutor and lifelong friend. Published post- cally characterized as Judaism (with its humously, Autoschediasmata, De Studio legalistic connotations), other errors are Theologiae:, or, Directions for the Choice of ascribed a more distinctively Christian Books in the Study of Theology (Oxford, 1699) heretical pedigree: Arminianism is (of was found among Barlow’s papers at his course) Pelagianism;4 while Socinianism, death, and clearly represents the kind of often a catch-all term for numerous radical basic reading with which he thought a groups, is a heady mix of Photinianism, student moving on to a Bachelor of Divin- Macedonianism, and Pelagianism.5 ity should be acquainted. In this work, Indeed, in Owen’s earliest published patristic writers feature both in the first work, A Display of Arminianism (1642), he section, dealing with the biblical text and sets the scene in the Epistle Dedicatory, canon, where they are seen as significant with a quotation from Augustine, a ref- for discussions of the extent of the canon; erence to holy war taken from Gregory but Barlow also lists contemporary works Nazianzus, and a clear rhetorical connec- on patristic history, as well as other manu- tion between the fifth century Pelagian als on how to read the Fathers. He does controversy and the differences between not bother so much with the listing of Calvin and Arminius (“One church primary texts—after all, this is simply an cannot wrap in her communion Austin introductory bibliography—but the skill [Augustine] and Pelagius, Calvin and of reading and using the Fathers is clearly Arminius”).6 Then, throughout the work considered by him to be a basic element there are constant reminders that what is of the theologian’s task. Owen would being witnessed is simply a recapitula- have been impacted by precisely the kind tion of the age-old Pelagian fascination of curricular emphases outlined by his with the idea of human free will and the tutor, Barlow, and thus patristic authors repudiation of divine sovereignty. would have formed a staple of his basic This approach is interesting and is theological diet. no doubt the result of various factors This had a wide impact on Reformed that underlie the self-understanding of Orthodoxy in general and Owen in par- Reformed Orthodox theologians. First, ticular. Indeed, his writings are full of we can see it as evidence of the desire of references to ancient Christian authors, so premodern theologians to avoid novelty. much so that little more can be offered in Orthodoxy is the norm; heresy is the inno- a short paper than some suggestive notes vation. Thus, by setting up contemporary which might prove fruitful as pointers to debates using the categories of archetypal 53 heresy, a twofold polemical point is being tion to the wider original context, but it made about both the opponents’ theology was inevitable that the taxonomy of the and the time-honored orthodoxy of the past could be transposed to the present Reformed. The Reformed Orthodox, as with little or no difficulty. This was not did the Reformers themselves, conducted a cyclical view of history because it was their polemics in significant measure heading towards eschatological consum- over the reception and interpretation of mation; but it was a view of history which historic Christian texts, particularly those minimized the contextual differences patristic authors of universal significance. between eras. That this is the case is demonstrated by Having said this, there is some evi- Owen’s concern even to establish quint- dence that the Reformed Orthodox had essentially Protestant doctrines on the developed a somewhat more nuanced basis of patristic precedent. For example, sense of the significance of their polemics when it comes to the scripture principle, than had been the case, say with Luther. Owen will cite extensively from Clement Luther saw the struggle over justifica- of Alexandria to establish his point.7 He tion as the equivalent of the Augustine- does much the same with justification by Pelagius controversy; but it is clear that faith, where he particularly uses patris- the issue at stake in the fifth century was tic citations to support his argument for the framework of salvation (the nature of mystical union as the basis for justification grace) more than the content of that sal- and imputation.8 vation (imputation of Christ’s righteous- Second, it indicates the limited sense ness). In Luther’s thinking the two seem of historical development with which to be different sides of the same coin; but the Reformed Orthodox operated. To say in actual fact they are conceptually sepa- that they had no conception of histori- rable. For Owen and his contemporaries, cal development would be incorrect, but however, it was clear that within Catholi- that development was generally seen as cism itself there was a struggle which theological, more specifically covenantal. paralleled that between Calvinists and Thus, in his discussion of the role and Arminians: that between Jansenists and place of liturgy in the church, Owen sees Jesuits; and Owen saw this, again, as the church history as a continual ebbing and result of residual Augustian influence in flowing of idolatry; and, under the impact the Roman Church: of the work of Cocceius, Reformed Ortho-