Beyond Demonstration: Historical Observations on Principles of Theology

Inaugural lecture by Prof. Dr. Aza Goudriaan

Beyond Demonstration: HISTORICAL OBSERVATIONS ON PRINCIPLES OF THEOLOGY

Beyond Demonstration: HISTORICAL OBSERVATIONS ON PRINCIPLES OF THEOLOGY

- 2020 -

Š 2020 Aza Goudriaan, ETF Leuven All rights reserved.

Beyond Demonstration: Historical Observations on Principles of Theology Evangelische Theologische Faculteit, Leuven Sint-Jansbergsesteenweg 97 3001 Leuven, Belgium Design Left Lane Cover picture Shutterstock (statue of Aristotle) Photograph Aza Goudriaan Laura Roman

ISBN 9789463961080 www.etf.edu

Beyond Demonstration: HISTORICAL OBSERVATIONS ON PRINCIPLES OF THEOLOGY

Inaugural lecture given by Prof. Dr. Aza Goudriaan on the occasion of his appointment as Guest Professor of Historical Theology (gasthoogleraar Historische Theologie) Evangelische Theologische Faculteit, Leuven December 4, 2020

2

Beyond Demonstration

Curriculum Vitae Aza Goudriaan (1969) delivered this inaugural address at the Evangelische Theologische Faculteit, Leuven, where he has served since September 2019. He studied theology at Leiden University and at the LudwigMaximilians-Universität München, receiving his master’s degree (highest grade) from Leiden University in 1994.

At Leiden University he obtained his PhD degree (highest grade) in 1999. He subsequently worked on two NWO-funded research projects, one of which was a postdoctoral project at Leiden University that was in part carried out at the School of Historical Studies, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton NJ (2002). In 2004 he took up a research position at the Erasmus School of Philosophy, Erasmus University Rotterdam.

Since 2007 he has been teaching the history of Christianity at the Faculty of Religion and Theology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. He is co-editor-in-chief of Church History and Religious Culture and member of the editorial board of the Documentatieblad Nadere Reformatie. His publications have focused in particular on the history of early modern theology, the interactions between theology and philosophy, and the reception of patristic thought.

Historical Observations Historical Observationson onPrinciples PrinciplesofofTheology Theology

3

Summary What are principles of Christian theology? For Aristotle, principles were the true, primary, immediate, and indemonstrable starting points of knowledge that are better known than, and explanatory of, conclusions. Throughout history, theologians who knew Aristotle (or knew a tradition that knew Aristotle) have taken different positions in which, for instance, the speaking God, the articles of faith, Holy Scripture, human reason plus revelation, and justification plus Scripture have been regarded as principles of theology. Why could the principles of Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics have seemed useful to Christian theologians? This lecture suggests, as a tentative answer, that Aristotle’s theory combined elements that could be considered relevant: principles were a common feature of all sciences; the criteria of immediacy and priority mandated a turn ad fontes; the indemonstrability of principles relieved them from the exclusive control of reason; the explanatory significance of the principle suggested that theological propositions needed to be accurately based upon it. Moreover, the indemonstrability of believed principles might be interpreted as opening up to the program of what Anselm famously described as “faith seeking understanding”: fides quaerens intellectum - which is also the motto of the ETF Leuven. The present lecture suggests that this motto finds support not only in Augustine and Anselm but also in the Christian reception history of Aristotle’s principles.

4

Beyond Demonstration

Historical Observations on Principles of Theology

5

Esteemed Rector, esteemed Dean, esteemed administrative director, esteemed members of the Board of Trustees of the Evangelische Theologische Faculteit, dear colleagues, dear students, dear family and friends, ladies and gentlemen, In the Middle Ages, the term “principle,” principium in Latin, could have different meanings. One of these was the inaugural lecture of a graduating master of theology who gave his first speech as a professor.1 Now this lecture is an inaugural address— though in an unusual online format, due to current circumstances—and principles are our theme, but our subject is not the history of inaugural lectures. Rather, we will look at the basic starting points of theology that have been discussed throughout history as the “principles of theology.”2 The term “principle” is, of course, a technical term. It is very possible to talk about the basic truths of theology, such as the existence of God, the canonical Scripture, and so forth, without ever using the term of “principle.” In reality, throughout the history of Christianity these basic truths were probably discussed most often without the actual term “principle” being used. Nonetheless, there has been a remarkable history of the Christian use of the term “principle” and I think this is a significant history from which we may still learn a few things.

What are “principles”? For a basic understanding of the concept, insofar as it had a significant influence on Christian thought, we need to go back to Greek philosophy, Thomas Prügl, “Medieval Biblical Principia as Reflections on the Nature of Theology,” in What is “Theology” in the Middle Ages? Religious Cultures of Europe (11th-15th Centuries) as Reflected in their Self-Understanding [Archa verbi: Subsidia 1], ed.

Mikolaj Olszewski (Münster: Aschendorff, 2007), 253-276, there 254.

2 An Interdisciplinary Master Class on “The Nature and Status of Principles in Western Thought,” hosted in 2016 by the Institute for Research in the Humanities at the University of Bucharest, to which I was invited by Professor Peter R. Anstey focused my attention on this significant theme. Some of the material that I presented on that occasion has been used in the present lecture.

I thank Peter Anstey, Institute director Dana Jalobeanu, and the other participants for their insights and for the discussions.

1

6

Beyond Demonstration

and more specifically to Aristotle.3 In his Posterior Analytics Aristotle argued that scientific understanding depends on principles. Aristotle mentioned six criteria.

Principles need to be: true and primitive and immediate and more familiar than and prior to and explanatory of the conclusion …4 Perhaps the truth criterion needs no explanation. Aristotle clarified: “one cannot understand what is not the case.”5 When Aristotle called the principles primary, he meant that they are indemonstrable. If principles could be proved, these proofs in turn would require demonstration, and so forth. This would go on to infinity, which Aristotle argues should be avoided by accepting a starting point that cannot be proven. These indemonstrable starting points are the principles.6 Aristotle also mentioned immediacy as a requirement, which he explained by saying that “an immediate proposition is one to which there is no other prior.”7 Again, as Aristotle explained, “these immediates must be indemonstrable.”8 Principles, furthermore, must be prior to and better known than the conclusion. Being grounds for the conclusion they must be prior to the conclusion. Furthermore, according to Aristotle, we must “believe more” in first principles than in whatever is concluded from them.9 It is noteworthy that the term “belief” is introduced here alongside the term knowledge. We can speculate that the choice of the word “believe” may have to do with the indemonstrable character of the principles, which I think is a reasonable assumption, but Aristotle did not explain why he was using the term

Peter R. Anstey, “Introduction,” in The Idea of Principles in Early Modern Thought. Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. Peter R. Anstey (London: Routledge, 2017), 1-15, there 4: “Aristotle has (at least) three theses about principles. First, principles are propositions that must satisfy certain conditions: they are universal, necessary, and primitive (i.e. indemonstrable) propositions.

Second, principles are discovered by experience with the use of nous. And third, each discipline has its own principles.”

4 Aristotle, Posterior Analytics, 1.2; 70b20-22, trans. Jonathan Barnes in The Complete Works of Aristotle. The Revised Oxford Translation, ed. Jonathan Barnes, 2 vols. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985), 114-166, there 115. Wolfgang Detel (ed.), Aristoteles, Zweite Analytik, Analytica posteriora. Griechisch Deutsch (Hamburg: Meiner, 2011), 6-7, there 6: “... ἐξ ἀληθῶν τ᾽ εἶναι καὶ πρώτων καὶ ἀμέσων καὶ γνωριμωτέρων καὶ προτέρων καὶ αἰτίων τοῦ συμπεράσματος.”

5 Aristotle, Posterior analytics, 1.2; 71b25; trans. Barnes, Complete Works, 2: 115.

6 See Richard D. McKirahan, Principles and Proofs. Aristotle’s Theory of Demonstrative Science (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017), 24-25.

7 Aristotle, Posterior analytics, 1.2; 72a7-8; trans. Barnes, Complete Works, 2: 116. McKirahan, Principles and Proofs, 26-27.

8 McKirahan, Principles and Proofs, 27, translating Posterior Analytics, 1.3; 72b22.

9 Ibid., 33-35, there 33; on Posterior Analytics, 1.3; 72a25-b4, there 72a32: “... πιστεύομεν μᾶλλον, ὅτι δι᾽ἐκεινα καὶ τὰ ὕστερα”; 36: “μᾶλλον γὰρ ἀνάγκη πιστεύειν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς…”; 39: “μᾶλλον αὐταῖς πιστεύειν ἢ τῷ δεικνυμένῳ…”; Detel (ed.), Aristoteles, Zweite Analytik, 10.

3

Historical Observations on Principles of Theology

7

here.10 The word “believing,” in any case, is rarely found in the Posterior analytics outside the discussion of principles.11 Finally, for the purpose of this lecture it is worth mentioning that for Aristotle every science had its own principles, but there are also common principles that could be applied in different sciences in different ways.12 Aristotle’s theory of principles has been immensely influential throughout the history of Christianity. It also has been significantly transformed throughout history. In this lecture I want to trace, in chronological sequence, positions that identified the principle(s) of theology as: the God who speaks, the articles of faith, Scripture, human reason plus revelation, or justification plus Scripture. Throughout history the changes have been significant, but for centuries there also has been a consistent reference to Scripture and an explicit or implicit dependence on Aristotle. Why would this be the case?

A few caveats are in order before we start our historical tour. First, asking questions about the “principles of theology” requires that there is such a thing as “theology.”

However, while the term “theology” was known in antiquity, it came to designate a scholarly discipline only in the course of the twelfth century.13 Our inquiry will include the use of principle or principles in the realm of faith even if these did not appear strictly under the label of theology.

The second caveat is related to the chronological range of our exercise. The sub discipline that has been labeled “historical theology” has been concerned with longue durée historiography ever since its seventeenth-century beginnings.14 Yet the modern need for academic specialization and for a contextualized 10 In Topica 1.1; 100b18-19, Aristotle asserted that principles were “τὰ μὴ δι᾽ἑτέρων, ἀλλὰ δι᾽αὑτῶν ἔχοντα τὴν πίστιν,” quoted by A. Huning, “Per se notum,” Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, ed. Joachim Ritter and Karlfried Gründer, vol. 7 (Darmstadt: WBG, 1989), 262-265, there 262.

11 Detel (ed.), Aristoteles, Zweite Analytik, 257.

12 Aristotle, Posterior analytics, 1.10.

13 On the early connotations of the term “theology,” see e.g. Christoph Markschies, Kaiserzeitliche christliche Theologie und ihre Institutionen. Prolegomena zu einer Geschichte der antiken christlichen Theologie (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 15-31; on the medieval development, see e.g. Ulrich Köpf, Die Anfänge der theologischen Wissenschaftstheorie im 13. Jahrhundert (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1974), chapter 2.

14 See the early works in “historical theology” written by John Forbes of Corse (1645) and Heinrich Alting (1664): Thomas Klöckner, Heinrich Alting (1583-1644). Lebensbild und Bedeutung für die reformierte Historiographie und Dogmengeschichtsschreibung des 17. Jahrhunderts (Göttingen: V&R, 2019); Aza Goudriaan, “The Reformation and Early ‘Historical Theology’: Heinrich Alting and John Forbes of Corse,” in Reforming Church History. The Rise of the Reformation as an Era in Early Modern European Historiography, ed. Daniel Gehrt, Markus Matthias, and Sascha Salatowsky (Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag, forthcoming).

8

Beyond Demonstration

understanding of history has discouraged the adoption of long-term perspectives for both practical and theoretical reasons. In recent years, however, historians have become increasingly aware of the downsides of an academic specialization focusing on micro-historical details. A new interest for long-term historiography has emerged, and understandably so: historical investigations that cover a longer period can make visible things that would otherwise remain hidden.15 In recent years this new interest in the long term has generated studies on the history of concepts such as civil war, freedom, happiness, and others.16 The present lecture focuses on a few major developments in principles of theology throughout the history of Christianity.

Obviously, we must be highly selective. In fact, after a quick look at the patristic era we will take one large step into the thirteenth century. But we begin in the second century.

See e.g. Jo Guldi & David Armitage, The History Manifesto (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014); David Armitage, “What’s the Big Idea? Intellectual History and the Longue Durée,” History of European Ideas 38 (2012), 493-507; Fred van Lieburg, “In saecula saeculorum. Long-Term Perspectives on Religious History,” Church History and Religious Culture 98 (2018), 319-343.

16 David Armitage, Civil Wars. A History in Ideas (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017); Darrin M. McMahon, Happiness. A History (New York: Grove, 2006); Annelien de Dijn, Freedom. An Unruly History (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2020).

15

Historical Observations on Principles of Theology

9

1. The God who Speaks An early Christian author that did not use the term “principle” but nonetheless made a point that reveals a structural affinity with Aristotle’s theory was the writer of a treatise on the resurrection that has been preserved under the name of Justin Martyr but was perhaps written by Athenagoras of Athens sometime between AD 153 and 185.17 The treatise starts by theoretical reflections on “the word of truth” - Christ - or truth itself - God - as being “stronger and more believable” than any demonstration for truth that could be invented. This author, in other words, argues that truth cannot be proved.18 He went on to say that faith is its own demonstration.

Revealing the Father, Jesus Christ “Himself is for Himself and everything together faith and demonstration; therefore, those who follow Him and have come to know Him rest in Him, having the faith in Him as demonstration.”19 While this author did not use the term “principles,” his remarks show why a Christian reception of Aristotle’s theory of principles could be possible: if God, being the truth, is “stronger and more believable” than everything else, the Aristotelian notion of a principle that is primary and immediate, indemonstrable and better known than any conclusion, could very well be considered a useful concept.

It is not entirely surprising, then, that Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–215)20 seems influenced by Aristotle’s view on principles. According to Elizabeth Clark, Clement gave a “distinctively religious interpretation to the notion of the first undemonstrated principles, one foreign to Aristotle’s discussion” by declaring that there was ultimately one principle, God. Being the first principle, God could not

Martin Heimgartner, Pseudojustin – Über die Auferstehung. Text und Studie (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2001), there 197 on the date. The authorship of the treatise is debated; Heimgartner argues for Athenagoras as its likely author.

Ps.-Justin, On the Resurrection, 1; ed. Heimgartner, Pseudojustin, 104-106, there 104,7-11: “πᾶσα γὰρ ἀπόδειξις ἰσχυροτέρα καὶ πιστοτέρα τοῦ ἀποδεικνυμένου τυγχάνει ... . τῆς δὲ ἀληθείας ἰσχυρότερον οὐδεν οὐδε πιστότερον …” (1.5-6).

19 Ibid., 104,24-26: “οὗτος [Ἰησοῦς Χριστός] τοίνυν αὐτός ἐστιν ἑαυτοῦ τε καὶ τῶν ὅλων ἁπάντων πίστις τε καὶ ἀπόδειξις. διόπερ οἱ τούτῳ κατακολουθοῦντες καὶ γνόντες αὐτὸν τὴν εἰς αὐτὸν πίστιν ὡς ἀπόδειξιν ἔχοντες ἀναπαύονται ἐπ᾽αὐτῷ ” (1.10-11).

20 On the relationship between Clement of Alexandria and the author of the treatise on the resurrection, see Heimgartner, Pseudojustin, 83-86. For dates on Clement’s career, see Ronald E. Heine, “The Alexandrians,” in The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature, ed. Frances Young, Lewis Ayres, and Andrew Louth (Cambridge: CUP, 2004), 117-130, there 117.

17

18

10

Beyond Demonstration

be proven but only apprehended by faith.21 In other words, Clement of Alexandria Christianized the Aristotelian theory of principles by declaring God to be the first principle. God is insusceptible to being demonstrated and can only be grasped by faith.

There is one further important element in Clement’s view of principles. It is found in book seven of the Miscellanies (Stromata), perhaps dating from about the year 203.22 When “suitably embracing by faith the indemonstrable first principle,” wrote Clement, “and receiving in abundance, from the first principle itself, demonstrations in reference to the first principle, we are by the voice of the Lord trained up to the knowledge of the truth.”23 This is a very significant point: Clement asserted that God, being the first principle, is not inactive or silent, but actively speaks and provides testimony about Himself. Clement continued by saying that “if what is stated must be confirmed, we do not wait for the testimony of men, but we establish the matter that is in question by the voice of the Lord, which is the surest of all demonstrations, or rather is the only demonstration.”24 Clement did not go so far as to explicitly claim that the Word of God is a principle. For him, God is the principle. Still, the context is a discussion on Scripture, and the voice of the Lord (φωνή

κυρίου) points to the message of the indemonstrable first principle, God,

whose words cannot be proven but require faith. From here to considering the Word of God a principle of theology certainly requires a further step that Clement did not take, but one that is by no means far-fetched, and it is not surprising that Elizabeth A. Clark, Clement’s Use of Aristotle. The Aristotelian Contribution to Clement of Alexandria’s Refutation of Gnosticism (New York: Edwin Mellen, 1977), 17-19 and 113-114, there 18; see also the important essay of Dragoş Andrei Giulea, “Apprehending ‘Demonstrations’ from the First Principle: Clement of Alexandria’s Phenomenology of Faith,” The Journal of Religion 89 (2009), 187-213. On Clement and Aristotle, cf. Mark Edwards, Aristotle and Early Christian Thought (London: Routledge, 2019), 44-46, and see also David Bradshaw, “Aristotelianism,” in: Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity Online, ed. David G. Hunter, Paul J.J. van Geest, and Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte (consulted online on 09 October 2020 <http://dx.doi.org.vu-nl.idm. oclc.org/10.1163/2589-7993_EECO_SIM_00000286>).

22 As proposed by A. Méhat (Heine, “The Alexandrians,” 118).

23 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7.16 (95.6), here quoted, in slightly modified form, from the trans. by W. Wilson, in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., Ante-Nicene Fathers [ANF], vol. 2 (1885, repr. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004), 551, also cited by Giulea, “Apprehending ‘Demonstrations,’” 187. Greek text in Otto Stählin, ed., Clemens Alexandrinus, dritter Band, Stromata Buch VII und VIII [GCS], 2nd ed. by Ludwig Früchtel & Ursula Treu (Berlin: Akademieverlag, 1970), 67,25-28: “εἰκότως τοίνυν πίστει περιλαβόντες ἀναπόδεικτον τὴν ἀρχήν, ἐκ περιουσίας καὶ τὰς ἀποδείξεις παρ᾽αὐτῆς τῆς ἀρχῆς περὶ τῆς άρχῆς λαβόντες, φωνῇ κυρίου παιδευόμεθα πρὸς τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς ἀληθείας.”

24 Trans. Wilson, ibid. (95.8); Stählin, Früchtel, and Treu, ed., Clemens Alexandrinus, 3: 67,29-68,1: “εἰ δ᾽ οὐκ ἀρκεῖ μόνον ἁπλῶς εἰπεῖν τὸ δόξαν, ἀλλὰ πιστώσασθαι δεῖ το λεχθέν, οὐ τὴν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀναμένομεν μαρτυρίαν, ἀλλὰ τῇ τοῦ κυρίου φωνῇ πιστούμεθα τὸ ζητούμενον, ἣ πασῶν ἀποδείξεων ἐχεγνωτέρα, μᾶλλον δὲ ἣ μόνη ἀπόδειξις οὖσα τυγχάνει.”

21

Historical Observations on Principles of Theology

11

much later, in the era of the Reformation when the works of Clement started to be rediscovered after centuries of having been ignored,25 Protestant theologians would cite these words in their discussion of the authority of Scripture.26

25 Irena Backus, “Lay and Theological Reception of Clement of Alexandria in the Reformation. From Gentien Hervet to Fénélon,” in Between Lay Piety and Academic Theology. Studies Presented to Christoph Burger on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, ed.

Ulrike Hascher-Burger, August den Hollander, Wim Janse (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 353-371, there 355: “Thus, having no mediaeval heritage, Clement was rediscovered only late on in the Renaissance.”

26 E.g. Amandus Polanus of Polansdorf, Syntagma theologiae christianae (Hanau: Claudius Marnius, 1610), 96-97. Cf. Stephen Bradly Tipton, “The Ground, Method, and Goal of Amandus Polanus’ (1561-1610) Doctrine of God: An Historical and Contextual Analysis,” Ph.D. dissertation Evangelische Theologische Faculteit Leuven 2020, 82 (without reference to Clement).

12

Beyond Demonstration

2. From the Articles of Faith to Scripture Leaving aside, for the present occasion, subsequent centuries of Christian theology - including the time of Origen27 - we will now consider developments in the early thirteenth century. In this time, the emergence of the university and the increasing availability of Aristotle’s works provided theologians with new questions. William of Auxerre (c. 1150–1231) seems to have been the first who articulated the view that soon became widespread according to which the principles of theology are the articles of faith. In the Summa aurea, written in the 1220s,28 he wrote this: Just as other sciences have their principles and their conclusions, theology likewise has its principles and its conclusions. And the principles of theology are the articles of faith. For faith is an argument, not a conclusion. But there is a difference, because the principles of the other sciences are self-evident but the principles of theology are not self-evident except to believers.29 William’s position is significant for two reasons. Firstly, he identified the principles of theology with the articles of faith. Secondly, the issue of self-evidence was a major problem for him that he solved by asserting that the articles of faith were self-evident to believers only.

For Origen’s work On Principles, see the new edition by John Behr (ed. and trans.), Origen, On First Principles, 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017).

Bruno Niederbacher and Gerhard Leibold (ed.), Theologie als Wissenschaft im Mittelalter. Texte, Übersetzungen, Kommentare (Münster: Aschendorff, 2006), 27.

29 William of Auxerre, Summa aurea, liber quartus, l. 4, tr. 5, c. 4, q. 3; ed. Jean Ribaillier (Grottaferrata: Editiones Collegii S. Bonaventurae, 1985), 115,52-56 (in sed contra): “Item, sicut alie scientie habent sua principia et conclusiones suas, ita theologia habet sua principia et conclusiones suas. Et principia theologie sunt articuli fidei. Fides enim argumentum est, non conclusio. Sed differentia est, quia principia aliarum scientiarum omnibus sunt per se nota; sed principia theologie non sunt per se nota nisi fidelibus.” In the following solutio, William distinguished between principles that are dignitates and those that are “suppositions” requiring prior explanation: “Sed sciendum quod quedam principia sunt dignitates, quedam suppositiones. Dignitates per se videntur sine aliqua confabulatione, suppositiones non sine aliqua levi expositione. Similiter articuli fidei quibusdam fidelibus sunt per se noti per modum dignitatis, videlicet eis qui habent exercitatos intellectus in eis que Dei sunt, quibusdam fidelibus sunt per se noti per modum suppositionis; et illis alia explicatio facienda est ad hoc, ut credant in actu, quia adhuc tenebre peccati super faciem abyssi sunt.” (115,76-116,85). The Summa aurea is searchable online in Brepols’s Library of Latin Texts, Series B. See Albert Lang, Die theologische Prinzipienlehre der mittelalterlichen Scholastik (Freiburg: Herder, 1964), 112-114, 151; Günter Frank, Topik als Methode der Dogmatik. Antike – Mittelalter – Frühe Neuzeit (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017), 112-121; cf. Köpf, Anfänge, 140.

27

28

Historical Observations on Principles of Theology

13

The problem of self-evidence was solved in another manner in Thomas Aquinas’s theory of subalternation. For Thomas, the principles of theology were self-evident not simply to humans but self-evident in the knowledge of God and the heavenly blessed. Finite human theology borrowed or received its principles from this higher science in which the principles were self-evident. Human theology, then, was a subordinated science that was free from the requirement of other sciences to have principles that are self-evident to everyone.30 In Aquinas’s solution, the principles of theology were still identified as the articles of faith, although there is also a passage in one of the later parts of the Summa theologiae, in which Thomas mentioned arguments in favor of faith as “proceeding from the principles of faith, namely the authorities of Holy Scripture (ex principiis fidei, scilicet ex auctoritatibus sacrae Scripturae).”31 Albert Lang has argued that statements such as this one “should not be forced,” as they simply express Thomas’s longstanding conviction that the theological principles are, in Thomas’s own words, “immediately from God by revelation.”32 While over-interpretation should indeed be avoided, it seems a valid question to ask whether Thomas’s later reference to the “authorities of Holy Scripture” as being “principles of the faith,” rather than being loosely formulated, indicates genuine progress of thinking. If principles are indeed “immediately from God by revelation,” as Thomas stated, describing them as “the authorities of Holy Scripture” seems to express that immediacy better than the concept of articles of faith that, as a subset, implies human interpretation.33

30 Köpf, Anfänge, 145-149. On Duns Scotus’s rejection of the view that theology was subordinated to the knowledge that God has, see e.g. A. Vos, H. Veldhuis, E. Dekker, N.W. den Bok, A.J. Beck (eds.), Duns Scotus on Divine Love. Texts and Commentary on Goodness and Freedom, God and Humans (London: Routledge, 2017), 37-39.

31 Thomas Aquinas, S. Theol. II/II, q. 1 art. 5 ad 2. In the sixteenth century this passage was mentioned by Melchior Cano when he discussed the question whether Thomas had given contradictory definitions of the principles of theology: (1) articles of faith, (2) all truths of Scripture, (3) both written and unwritten revelation. Cano, De locis theologicis libri duodecim (Salamanca: Mathias Gastius, 1563), 394: “Primus est, quod D. Thomas paucis verbis multa peccare videtur. Unum, quod secum ipse pugnat.

Modo enim ait articulos fidei esse Theologiae principia: nunc autem illa omnia, quae in sacris literis continentur: imo aliquando universa etiam quae sunt divinitus revelata: in quibus traditiones profecto Apostolorum sunt, quamquam in libris canonicis non inveniuntur scriptae.” The margin provides the following references: S. Theol. I, q. 1. art. 7-8; I, art. 8 ad 2; II-II, q. 1, art. 5 ad 2; I, q. 1, art. 5 ad 2 and art. 8 ad 2.

32 Lang, Theologische Prinzipienlehre, 131-132, there 132: “eine verkürzte Ausdrucksweise, die nicht gepreßt werden darf.” The expression “immediate a Deo per revelationem” is quoted from S. Theol. I, q. 1, art. 5 ad 2.

33 It is perhaps fair to say that the later equivalence “principles, that is, authorities of Scripture” was prepared in S. Theol. I, q. 1, art. 8, ad 2, according to which in strict theological reasoning “the authorities of the canonical Scripture” are used.

14

Beyond Demonstration

One of the medieval authors who explicitly described Holy Scripture as the principle of theology was the thirteenth-century theologian and philosopher Godfrey of Fontaines (ca. 1250–ca. 1306), who was born in the principality of Liège in what is now Belgium. In a treatise written probably in the 1290s,34 Godfrey asserted that “… the authority of Scripture is the first and radical principle in which finally can be resolved everything that is known in theology by whatever arguments…”35 In the later Middle Ages increasingly the view gained traction that not the articles of faith but rather the contents of the biblical canon were the principle of theology.

One of those who clearly expressed the latter view was the Augustinian theologian Gregory of Rimini (ob. 1358). Writing against Peter Aureoli, Gregory of Rimini declared that the principles of theology were “the truths of the sacred canon themselves, because with them the ultimate resolution of the whole theological discourse ends and from them primarily all theological conclusions are deduced.”

When subsequently speaking of theological conclusions, Gregory showed that if we assume that the canonical truths are the principles of theology, the conclusions could not be limited to the articles of faith, and also included truths that are valid independently from ecclesiastical definition.36 It is worth pointing out that Gregory was not alone in taking this position: in fact, according to Albert Lang, Gregory’s view became dominant in the later Middle Ages.37 One obvious example is Pierre d’Ailly (1351–1420), who borrowed from

Godfrey of Fontaines’s Quodlibeta 1-14 are dated between 1285-1299; Theo Kobusch, Die Philosophie des Hoch- und Spätmittelalters (München: C.H. Beck, 2011), 324.

Godfrey of Fontaines, Quodlibeta 9, q. 20, in Le huitième quodlibet de Godefroid de Fontaines (texte inédit), ed. J. Hoffmans (Louvain: Institut supérieur de philosophie, 1924) [Les philosophes Belges, 4], 287: “… auctoritas scripturae est primum et radicale principium in quo finaliter contingit resolvere quaecumque in theologia per qualescumque rationes cognoscuntur …” Cf. Hermann Schüssler, Der Primat der heiligen Schrift als theologisches und kanonistisches Problem im Spätmittelalter (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1977), 92; Albert Lang, Die Entfaltung des apologetischen Problems in der Scholastik des Mittelalters (Freiburg: Herder, 1962), 107.

36 Gregory of Rimini, Lectura super primum et secundum sententiarum, I, prologus, q. 1, art. 2, resp.; ed. A. Damasus Trapp and Venicio Marcolino, vol. 1 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1981), 20,1-10: “Ex hoc ulterius patet quod principia theologiae sic sumptae, quae scilicet per theologicos discursus acquiritur, sunt ipsae sacri canonis veritates, quoniam ad ipsas stat ultimata resolutio totius discursus theologici et ex eis primo cunctae conclusiones theologicae deducuntur. Conclusiones autem theologicas – distinguendo conclusiones contra principia – dico omnes veritates non secundum se formaliter in sacra scriptura contentas, sed ex contentis in ipsa de necessitate sequentes, et hoc sive sint articuli fidei sive non, sive etiam sint scibilies vel scitae per scientiam aliam sive non, sive etiam sint determinatae per ecclesiam sive non; ceterum autem veritatum, scilicet non sequentium ex dictis sacrae scripturae, nullam dico esse conclusionem theologicam.” On Gregory’s position, see Lang, Theologische Prinzipienlehre, 178-179; Schüssler, Primat, 99-101.

37 Lang, Theologische Prinzipienlehre, 178-181, citing Henry of Oyta, Franciscus de Marchia, Marsilius of Inghen, and others.

34

35

Historical Observations on Principles of Theology

15

Gregory in his own treatise on the Sentences. In a formulation that is obviously dependent on Gregory, Pierre d’Ailly asserted that the principles of theology are “the truths of the sacred canon themselves” and the conclusions that are drawn from these principles are “truths that are not formally contained in Holy Scripture but follow necessarily from what is included in them, whether they are articles [of faith] or not, whether they are determined by the Church or not, whether they are known or not.”38 The Puritan theologian William Perkins (1558–1602) would later refer to this passage in support of the Reformation’s principle of Scripture.39 By asserting that Scripture as a principle is more fundamental than the articles of faith and the testimony of the Church, authors such as Gregory of Rimini and Pierre d’Ailly contradicted an alternative view represented in the late Middle Ages by authors such as Hermann of Schildesche (ob. 1357) who argued that “believing the holy Church is the principle and foundation of all articles of faith as far as we are concerned.”40 The medieval heritage on theological principles, then, included at least three different positions: (1) the view that the articles of faith are the principles of theology, (2) the view that more fundamental than the articles of faith are the truths of Holy Scripture which, therefore, are the principles of theology, and (3) the view that more fundamental than both Scripture and the articles of faith is the holy Church that lends them credibility.

Pierre d’Ailly, Quaestiones super primum, tertium et quartum librum sententiarum, I, principia et questio circa prologum, ed.

Monica Brinzei (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013) [CCCM 258], 199,73-200,81 (prologus, q. 1, art. 3): “Ex hac descriptione patet que sint principia theologica. Sunt enim ipse sacri canonis veritates, quoniam ad ipsas est ultimata resolutio theologici discursus et ex eis primo singule conclusiones theologice deducuntur. Secundo patet que sint conclusiones proprie theologice distinguendo conclusiones contra principia. Sunt enim ille veritates que non formaliter in Sacra Scriptura continentur, sed ex contentis in ipsa de necessitate sequuntur, sive sint articuli sive non, sive sint per Ecclesiam determinate sive non, sive sint scite sive non.” The corresponding passage in Gregory of Rimini has been referenced in Brinzei’s critical apparatus, and see above. On Pierre d’Ailly and Scripture, see e.g. Ian Christopher Levy, Holy Scripture and the Quest for Authority at the End of the Middle Ages (Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 2012), 194-200; Schüssler, Primat, 133-139. Pierre d’Ailly’s dependence on Gregory of Rimini is discussed in Manfred Schulze, “‘Via Gregorii’ in Forschung und Quellen,” in Gregor von Rimini, Werk und Wirkung bis zur Reformation, ed. Heiko A. Oberman (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1981), 1-126, there 69 on the principles of theology.

39 William Perkins, Problema de Romanae fidei ementito Catholicismo, in Opera (Geneva: Petrus and Jacobus Chouët, 1611), 255, referring to Pierre d’Ailly, 1 Sent, q. 1 art 3.

40 Schüssler, Primat, 106-107, there 106: “quod credere in sanctam ecclesiam est principium et fundamentum omnium articulorum fidei quoad nos.”

38

16

Beyond Demonstration

3. Scripture or Reason?

The Reformation is widely known for its adherence to the Schriftprinzip, the conviction that the Bible is decisive in matters of faith and conduct. In such a general meaning, however, the normativity of the Bible was by no means a specifically Protestant affair, and biblical authority could very well be acknowledged without any reference to the technical term of principium. Nonetheless, abundant evidence shows that many Protestants considered the Bible a principium of theology also in a more philosophical sense.

This started perhaps with Martin Luther (1483–1546) himself, who described the Bible as a “principle” in several early writings. This may not at all be surprising for someone who, according to Philipp Melanchthon (1497–1560), was able to remember almost verbally Pierre d’Ailly’s commentary on the sentences,41 but it remains unclear whether d’Ailly (and therefore indirectly Gregory of Rimini) inspired Luther’s use of the term. In 1520, Luther described the Bible as the “first principle, as they say, from which we need to start (principium (quod dicunt) primum, a quo incipi oporteat),” and in the direct context he described it in a manner that fitted the more technical connotations of a principle: Scripture is “by itself most certain, most easy, most obvious, interpreting itself, proving, judging and illuminating everything else (per sese certissima, facillima, apertissima, sui ipsius interpres, omnium omnia probans, iudicans et illuminans”).42 These attributes are not exactly the same as those mentioned by Aristotle in the Posterior Analytics: “things which are true and primitive and immediate and more familiar than and prior to and explanatory of the conclusion…”43 Yet Luther’s description of Scripture as being certain, easily knowable, obvious, interpreting itself, proving everything else, is clearly a description that integrates key elements of the Aristotelian principles.

Schulze, “‘Via Gregorii,’” 74.

Assertio omnium articulorum M. Lutheri per bullam Leonis X. novissimam damnatorum, WA 7: 97. Jörg Lauster, Prinzip und Methode. Die Transformation des protestantischen Schriftprinzips durch die historische Kritik von Schleiermacher bis zur Gegenwart (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 12-13; Simon Kuntze, Die Mündlichkeit der Schrift. Eine Rekonstruktion des lutherischen Schriftprinzips (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2020), 25-26; cf. 41.

43 Aristotle, Posterior Analytics 1.2, 71b20-22; trans. Jonathan Barnes, Complete Works 1:115.

41 42

Historical Observations on Principles of Theology

17

In his 1525 debate with Erasmus, Luther again referred to the Bible as “our first principle, by which all other things are to be proven.” If some consider Scripture “obscure and ambiguous,” their view would imply that the first principle itself needed demonstration, which philosophers regard as “absurd and impossible.”44 For Luther, in other words, as a principle, the Bible was the starting point that itself could not be proven but from which everything else in theology needed to be demonstrated.

John Calvin (1509-1564) did not explicitly ascribe to Holy Scripture the status of principle of theology in a formal sense, but he clearly understood Scripture against the background of the philosophical concept of principles, as is shown by his description of Holy Scripture as

ἀυτόπιστος or self-convincing.45 In Reformed orthodoxy,

however, the principle of theology was a normal element of systematic discussion.46 One of the earliest Reformed thinkers to write about the principle of theology was a contemporary of Calvin, Andreas Hyperius (1511–1564). Hyperius, originally from Yper in present-day Belgium, taught for years at Marburg. He identified Scripture as the single principle of theology.47 In his Methodi theologiae of 1567, there is not a separate locus on Scripture but Hyperius nonetheless gave a preliminary exposition on Scripture. Here he wrote the following: Every kind of discipline has certain particular principles by themselves posited and granted, from which proofs are derived and from which an advance to higher matters occurs; or, when they are negated, nothing can be accomplished in those same disciplines. In this way, dialecticians have 44 De servo arbitrio, WA 18: 653: “Verum qui in contrarium persuasi sumus iamdudum pestilenti illo Sophistarum verbo, Scripturas esse obscuras et ambiguas, cogimur primum probare illud ipsum primum principium nostrum, quo omnia allia probanda sunt, quod apud philosophos absurdum et impossibile factu videretur.” Cf. Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Das protestantische Prinzip im ökumenischen Dialog (1991),” Beiträge zur Systematischen Theologie, vol. 3, Kirche und Ökumene (Göttingen: V&R, 2000), 186-193, there 186.

45 Henk van den Belt, The Authority of Scripture in Reformed Theology. Truth and Trust (Leiden: Brill, 2008), esp. 112-114.

46 Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. The Rise and Development of Reformed Dogmatics, ca. 1520 to ca.

1725, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), vol. 1: 430-445. Cf. Muller, “Scholasticism Protestant and Catholic: Francis Turretin on the Object and Principles of Theology,” Church History 55 (1986), 193-205. Gijsbert van den Brink, “Prolegomena,” in The Oxford Handbook of Reformed Theology, ed. Michael Allen and Scott R. Swain (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), 373-388.

Paul Althaus, Die Prinzipien der deutschen reformierten Dogmatik im Zeitalter der aristotelischen Scholastik (1914; repr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1967) is less occupied with principles in a specific (“Aristotelian”) sense than with its own set of Prinzipienfragen: the relations between (a) “theology and philosophy” as well as (b) “reason and revelation,” and (c) the problem of “religious certainty” (ibid., 8).

47 W. van ’t Spijker, Principe, methode en functie van de theologie bij Andreas Hyperius (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1990), 12-24.

18

Beyond Demonstration

their principles, the mathematicians, physicians, and in the same way the professors of the other arts. In the same manner theology, too, has some principle of its own: namely Holy Scripture itself, which is divinely revealed and the true and living Word of the living God. From this single principle as a rich treasury, all dogmas of religious doctrine, and every means of knowing true piety in this life and attaining salvation after this life must be fetched; moreover, it is not allowed to move away even a straw’s breadth from this principle.48 This passage is significant for several reasons. First, Hyperius identified one single principle of Scripture, and it is “the true and living Word of the true and living God.” Second, the adoption of this principle shows theology to be a “discipline” like the others, all of which have their own principles from which further knowledge is deduced. This is in line with Aristotle and medieval theology since William of Auxerre. In the third place, this single (solus) principle of theology is nonetheless not like the others: it is not only a presupposition for reasoning but it is also a treasure containing instruction for faith and life, toward attaining eternal salvation. It is also normative, both theoretically and practically, with regard to both faith and conduct.

In Lutheran orthodoxy, the view that the Word of God was the principle of theology or, more precisely, its epistemological principle or principium cognoscendi, was commonplace.49 A sixteenth-century example was Jacob Heerbrand (1521–1600), once a student of Luther and Melanchthon at Wittenberg who published in 1573

Hyperius, Methodi theologiae sive praecipuorum Christianae religionis locorum communium libri tres (Basel: Ioannes Oporinus, 1567), 24: “Sunt sua cuique Disciplinarum generi propria quaedam principia, per se posita concessaque, e quibus ducuntur probationes, sitque progressus ad altiora: et quibus sublatis, negatisve, non licet quicquam in ijsdem Disciplinis efficere. Sic enim sua principia habent Dialectici, habent Mathematici, habent Physici, atque aliarum item artium Professores. Eodem autem pacto est Theologiae quoque proprium quoddam principium: ipsa nimirum sacra Scriptura, diuinitus reuelata, qua est ueri ac uiui Dei uerum ac uiuum uerbum. Ex quo quidem solo principio, tanquam diuite thesauro, omnia dogmata doctrinae Religionis, adeoque omne instrumentum cognoscendae uerae pietatis in hac uita, et consequendae salutis post hanc uitam, depromi debent: a quo insuper principio non licet usquam uel latum culmum deflectere.” Cf. Andreas Hyperius, Topica theologica (Wittenberg: Petrus Seitz, 1565), 5: “Sic se habent libri sacri praesertim Canonici appellati in Theologia, quemadmodum in unaquaque disciplina prima earundum principia, quae poni atque concedi omnino necesse est.”

49 For a survey, see e.g. Carl Heinz Ratschow, Lutherische Dogmatik zwischen Reformation und Aufklärung, vol. 1 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1964), 71-76 (“Das Wort Gottes als Erkenntnisprinzip”); Heinrich Schmid, Die Dogmatik der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche dargestellt und aus den Quellen belegt, ed. Horst Georg Pöhlmann (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1990), 32-34 (“De principio theologiae, s. de revelatione”).

48

Historical Observations on Principles of Theology

19

a theological compendium that became one of the “most important textbooks of early Lutheran orthodox dogmatics.”50 In a passage found in the “enlarged” edition of 1578, Heerbrand described the Bible as the principle of theology. He wrote: Why should a compendium of theology begin with Holy Scripture?

Answer: Because it is the common and irrefragable principle, origin, and foundation of the whole theology that is doubted by nobody who professes the Christian religion.51 What Heerbrand expressed in rudimentary form and without any Aristotelian reference, was elaborated by one of the most influential early representatives of Lutheran orthodoxy: Johann Gerhard (1582–1637).52 In the 1610 preface of his Loci theologici, Gerhard distinguished between God as the “principle of being” (principium essendi) of theology and Scripture as its “principle of knowing” (principium cognoscendi). The distinction between principles of being and knowing was very common in theology, and went back to Aristotle.53 Gerhard further declared that the principle of theology was the “divine revelation” as expressed in Holy Scripture. Gerhard rejected the view of Thomas Aquinas and the fifteenthcentury Thomist Johannes Capreolus who held that the articles of faith were the principles of theology: These articles are derived from Scripture, dependent on Scripture, and therefore principled rather than principles. Scripture is “the unique and proper principle of theology.” Gerhard was quite outspoken about the fact that he understood the concept of “principle” in the sense of Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics, book 1, chapter 2:

Albrecht Beutel, ‘Heerbrand, Jacob’, RGG 4th ed., vol. 3 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 1502-1503.

Jacob Heerbrand, Compendium theologiae, nunc passim auctum et methodi quaestionibus tractatum (Tübingen: Georg Gruppenbach, 1578), 1: “Cur a Scriptura S. incipiendum Theologiae compendium? Responsio. Quia commune est et irrefragabile principium, origo et fundamentum totius theologiae, de quo a nemine dubitatur, qui Christianam profitetur Religionem.” Ratschow, Lutherische Dogmatik, 1: 71: “Der Begriff des principium hat dabei noch keine grundsätzliche Bedeutung.”

52 Bengt Hägglund, Die Heilige Schrift und ihre Deutung in der Theologie Johann Gerhards. Eine Untersuchung über das altlutherische Schriftverständnis (Lund: Gleerup, 1951), 136-184. Ernst Troeltsch’s work on Vernunft und Offenbarung bei Johann Gerhard und Melanchthon is obviously outdated but his remarks on principles are still worth reading: Vernunft und Offenbarung bei Johann Gerhard und Melanchthon (1891) in Ernst Troeltsch, Schriften zur Theologie und Religionsphilosophie (1888-1902), ed. Christian Albrecht et al. [Kritische Gesamtausgabe, 1] (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009), 102-107.

53 Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics 1: 430-440; Aristotle, Metaphysics, 5.1; esp. 1013a17-19; trans. W.D. Ross in Barnes (ed.), Collected Works, 1: 1599.

50 51

20

Beyond Demonstration

Principles in any discipline should be first and immediate, true, unaccountable, credible in themselves, undeniable and undemonstrated, so that whatever is against them or is concluded from things that are contrary to them appears most fallacious to all correctly judging people, and conversely all people state as certain and firm whatever is in accordance with them. Aristotle, [book] 1, Posterior [Analytics] chapter 2. All these properties and every single one of them fit to the written Word of God, and to it alone …54 In this remarkable passage Gerhard mentioned the criteria of principles in Greek words, thereby suggesting that he was quoting from Aristotle whereas in fact Aristotle used some but not all of these Greek terms in the cited chapter. More important, however, is that the (partly) Aristotelian criteria are Gerhard’s basis for the un-Aristotelian assertion that the Bible is the single principle of theology.

What the Lutheran Gerhard stated in 1610 had been asserted by the Reformed theologian Sibrandus Lubbertus (c. 1555–1625) nearly twenty years before. In 1591 this Franeker professor published a work against the Jesuit Robert Bellarmine (1542– 1621) under the title De principiis christianorum dogmatum (On the principles of Christian doctrines). Lubbertus laid out extensively what the requirements of principles in theology were if compared with Aristotle’s theory of principles that Lubbertus quoted from the Posterior Analytics and the Metaphysics. “… I will show,” he wrote, “what kind of principles we need in theology. They need to be true, immediate, that is most necessary, prior, better known, and the causes of all doctrines in the Christian religion.”55 Principles are true, first of all, that is: immutably so. Principles are, secondly, immediate, that is, they do not allow for anything that is prior to them and from which they could be demonstrated. The immediacy of

Johann Gerhard, Loci theologici, prooemium, ed. Ed. Preuss, vol. 1 (Berlin: Schlawitz, 1863), 4 (§ 20): “Principia in qualibet disciplina debent esse πρῶτα καὶ ἄμεσα, ἀληθῆ, ἀνυπεύθυνα, αὐτόπιστα, ἀναντίρρητα καὶ ἀναπόδεικτα, adeo ut quicquid illis adversatur, aut ex iis, quae eisdem contraria sunt, concluditur, nihil eo fallacius omnibus recte judicantibus appareat, et vicissim quicquid illis congruit, certum et firmum esse omnes statuant. Arist. 1, post. c. 2. At hae proprietates omnes et singulae conveniunt scripto Dei verbo, et quidem soli, ut in articulo de Scriptura latius demonstrabitur.” Cf. Hägglund, Heilige Schrift, 138.

55 Sibrandus Lubbertus, De principiis christianorum dogmatum libri septem, scholastice et theologice collati cum disputationibus Roberti Bellarmini Iesuitae Romani (Franeker: Aegidius Radaeus, 1591), 1: “…ostendam qualia principia in Theologia requiramus. Debent autem esse vera, immediata, i. summe necessaria, priora, notiora, et caussae omnium dogmatum in christiana religione.” On this work, see Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 1: 431-432; C. van der Woude, Sibrandus Lubbertus.

Leven en werken, in het bijzonder naar zijn correspondentie (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1963), 72-80.

54

Historical Observations on Principles of Theology

21

principles, therefore, implies their indemonstrability. Principles, thirdly, are causes (that is, they are “explanatory”56) of true doctrines and causes of their knowledge.

Fourthly, as seems to be implied in the former point, principles are “better known and prior” than the derived doctrines.

Taking up a point mentioned by Robert Bellarmine, Lubbertus added that disputing parties must agree on the principles they use to decide controversies. Bellarmine had admitted that Roman Catholics and Protestants both agreed on the “common principle” that “the Word of God is the rule of faith”—but he added that precisely how this principle should be interpreted was a bone of contention.57 This situation was confirmed by Protestants.58 It is not surprising, then, to see the Jesuit Francisco Suárez (1548–1617) likewise describing Scripture as the “infallible rule of faith” and stating that the biblical canon contains the Word of God as the “first principle” (primum principium) of Christianity. As such, Suárez wrote, it needed no proofs among Christians (since no science, as Aristotle had argued, demonstrates the “first principles” on which it is based). In debates with non-Christians “other principles” were needed upon which to base the argument.59 The point of disagreement between Roman Catholics and Protestants was that the former added tradition to Scripture as another principle of theology.

The Aristotelian criteria from Posterior Analytics, book one, were also used by the Reformed theologian Heinrich Alting (1583–1644) to explain the Reformed principle of theology and to argue that additional principles defended by Roman Catholics

56 Jonathan Barnes’s translation of αἴτια in Analytica posteriora 1.2; 71b29-30; Complete Works, 1: 115; cf. Wolfgang Detel, ed., Aristoteles, Zweite Analytik, 6.

57 Robert Bellarmine, Disputationes de controversiis christianae fidei adversus hujus temporis haereticos, vol. 1 (Ingolstadt: David Sartorius, 1587), praefatio, ***3r-v: “Neque enim disputari potest, nisi prius in aliquo communi principio cum adversariis conveniamus: convenit autem inter nos et omnes omnino haereticos, verbum Dei esse regulam fidei; ex qua de dogmatibus iudicandum sit: esse commune principium ab omnibus concessum unde argumenta ducantur: denique esse gladium spiritualem, qui in hoc certamine recusari non possit. Tamen de isto ipso communi principio multae quaestiones sunt.”

58 Cf. Heinrich Alting, Problemata theologica, tam theoretica, quam practica, in Scripta theologica Heidelbergensia, vol. 2 (Amsterdam: Caspar Commelin, 1662), 13a: “De hoc, quod S. Scriptura sit Principium dogmatum Theologicorum, nulla est controversia inter Christianos: sed an sit Unicum principium disputant Orthodoxi et Pontificii.”

59 Francisco Suárez, De fide theologica, 5.3.1, in Opera omnia, ed. Carolus Berton, vol. 12, (Paris: Vivès, 1858), 142a: “Supponimus dari in Ecclesia quosdam libros quos canonicos vocamus, in quibus verbum Dei scriptum contineri credimus; quae suppositio tanquam dignitas, seu primum principium accipitur ab omnibus qui Christianorum nomen profitentur, et ideo inter eos probandum non est, ut recte Castro, l. 1 cont. Haeres., c. 2, notavit, quia nulla doctrina, juxta Philosophum, probat sua prima principia; et ita hoc fundamentum admittunt omnes qui confitentur Christum, etiamsi alias haeretici sint; qui autem Scripturas negant, praesertim novi Testamenti, solum sunt pagani, aut Judaei, contra quos ex aliis principiis agendum est.”

22

Beyond Demonstration

did not qualify as principles. Alting took the same approach as Johann Gerhard and Lubbertus had done: a principle of theology needs to be “immutably true, immediate, necessary, and the cause of all conclusions or theological doctrines,” and Scripture meets all of these criteria.60 Alting went further by also measuring the additional principles of Roman Catholic theology—namely, the decrees of Church councils and popes as well as patristic authority—to the same Aristotelian standard, to find that these were “not immediately true…, not necessary…, not immediate…, and not the cause of all doctrines.”61 In late seventeenth-century and eighteenth-century Protestant theology, the exclusive position of the Bible as the principle of theology was weakened by some theologians who introduced, as two principles of theology, reason and revelation.62 Richard Muller mentioned, among others, on the Reformed side Campegius Vitringa (1659– 1722) and his student Herman Venema (1697–1787) as proponents of the view that reason and revelation are principles of theology.63 This was probably the dominant position among Franeker theologians at the time. Vitringa’s colleague, Herman Alexander Röell (1653–1718), taught in his 1686 inaugural lecture at Franeker that human reason was the principle of “religion and piety.”64 In a marginal annotation introduced in the second edition Röell argued that reason and revelation, both being from God, could not deceive, nor was it possible for these “two principles” to contradict each other.65 When Vitringa published his Aphorismi in 1688, the first chapter asserted that God revealed Himself in the human mind, and “from this first principle of truth that is located in his mind” a human being can know God and himself.66 In later editions Vitringa expanded both the chapter itself and its title. The chapter title now said: “on theology and its first principle: reason.” At the same

Alting, Problemata theologica, 13b.

Ibid., 14a.

Cf. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 1: 443-445; Hägglund, Heilige Schrift, 143-144.

63 Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 1: 443-444.

64 Herman Alexander Röell, Oratio inauguralis de religione rationali (Franeker: Johannes Gyselaar, 1686), 105: “… non aliud natura Religionis ac pietatis sit in homine principium, aut norma, quam Ratio …”

65 Herman Alexander Röell, Dissertatio de religione rationali, editio secunda (Franeker: Johannes Gyselaar, 1689), 109-110: “Quare repugnat vel Rationem vel Revelationem fallere posse: cum utriusque Deus auctor sit. Tum et repugnat, haec duo principia sibi posse adversari.” This treatise was popular and went through five further editions (1695, 1700, 1705, 1713, 1722); Jacob van Sluis, Herman Alexander Röell (Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy, 1988), 209.

66 Campegius Vitringa, Aphorismi quibus fundamenta sanctae theologiae comprehenduntur. In usus scholarum privatarum (Franeker: Johannes Gyselaar, 1688), 2-3.

60 61 62

Historical Observations on Principles of Theology

23

time, the Aristotelian heritage becomes visible in Vitringa’s assertion that theology, just like the other sciences, has principles and provides definitions. Vitringa further declared that the “certain principles on which this science is founded are reason and revelation.”67 Both the emphasis on certainty and the idea of reason being a principle can be understood against the background of Cartesian philosophy.68 Revelation is necessary, wrote Vitringa, as “the other principle of theological doctrine,” thus indicating its secondary role.69 Vitringa’s theological rationalism, like that of Röell, justified its high regard for reason by its God-given character: reason, being a gift of God, is receiver of God’s natural revelation and therefore reliable.

Vitringa’s and Röell’s works that I just mentioned were quite popular at the time— they had six or more editions70—but the claim that human reason was a principle of theology was strongly contradicted by those Reformed contemporaries that kept to the classical view,71 and it also seems without parallel in contemporary Lutheranism.

Devoting a chapter of his dogmatic handbook to “the principle of theology, or Holy Scripture,” Johann Lorenz von Mosheim (1693–1755) still declared the Bible the principle of theology.72 He admitted, however, that some articles of faith could be known from both Scripture and natural human reason, and to those Mosheim

See e.g. the 1702 edition: Doctrina christianae religionis, per aphorismos summatim descripta, editio quarta (Franeker: Franciscus Halma, 1702), 1 and 4 (§ 16): “Sunt autem Principia certa, in quibus haec Scientia fundata est, Ratio, et Revelatio” (emphasis there).

68 Cf. Descartes, Principia philosophiae 1.7, AT VIII-1, 7,7-9: “… haec cognitio, ego cogito, ergo sum, est omnium prima et certissima, quae cuilibet ordine philosophant occurrat.” At this point, Vitringa departed from Johannes Cocceius who considered Holy Scripture to be the theological principium cognoscendi and denied that reason was principium fidei, see W.J. van Asselt, The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669) (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 69, 102. Andreas J. Beck, “Rationalität und Scholastik in der reformierten Orthodoxie, insbesondere bei Keckermann, Voetius und Coccejus,” in Reformation und Rationalität, ed.

Herman J. Selderhuis and Ernst-Joachim Waschke (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 263-288, there 281-282.

69 Vitringa, Doctrina christianae religionis, 10 (§ 47) and the title of chapter 2. An English trans. of chapter 2, “De Scriptura Sancta, Altero Theologiae Principio,” as printed in the 1690 edition, is given in Charles K. Telfer, Wrestling with Isaiah: The Exegetical Methodology of Campegius Vitringa (1659-1722) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016), 229-237 (Appendix 1; on the edition, see 225 n.98).

70 On Vitringa’s Aphorismi, see Telfer, Vitringa, 31; on Röell’s Oratio or Dissertatio, see footnote 65 above.

71 E.g. Johannes Marckius, Compendium theologiae christianae didactico-elencticum, 2nd ed. (Amsterdam: Gerardus Borstius, 1690), 14, and the commentary by Bernhardinus de Moor, Commentarius perpetuus in Johannis Marckii Compendium theologiae didactico-elencticum, vol. 1 (Leiden: Johannes Hasebroek, 1761), 94, where Röell is mentioned by name.

72 Johann Lorenz von Mosheim, Elementa theologiae dogmaticae, ed. C.E. de Windheim (Nürnberg: G.P. Monath, 1758), 83.

67

24

Beyond Demonstration

ascribed two principles: “reason and revelation.”73 This does not necessarily indicate an Enlightenment turn to reason, because Mosheim, in contrast to Röell and Vitringa, confined these two principles to the limited category of articles of faith that could also be known by natural reason.74 Moreover, the attribution of two principles to natural theology can be found in the earlier Reformed theology as well, as can be seen in Gisbertus Voetius (1589–1676).75

Ibid., 32: “Articulus purus est dogma, quod unum tantum principium, revelationem nempe, habet. Articulus mixtus duplex habet principium, rationem et revelationem.” On Mosheim’s principles, see Johannes Reinhard, Die Prinzipienlehre der lutherischen Dogmatik von 1700 bis 1750 (Hollatz, Buddeus, Mosheim). Beitrag zur Geschichte der altprotestantischen Theologie und zur Vorgeschichte des Rationalismus (Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1906), 78-100, there 88: “Das Ergebnis läßt sich in folgende Sätze zusammenfassen: für Mosheim ist die Schrift hauptsächlichste Quelle und vornehmste Richtschnur der theologischen Lehre, daneben steht die Vernunft als formbildendes Vermögen und als rezeptives Organ; für den Glauben kommt sie nur in letzter Hinsicht in Betracht, während die Schrift alleiniges Prinzip bleibt.”

74 The context of Christian dogmatics is also different from a discussion of natural religion per se. On natural religion and its principles as discussed by English thinkers, see Peter R. Anstey, “Experimental Philosophy and the Principles of Natural Religion in England, 1667-1720,” in The Idea of Principles in Early Modern Thought, 246-270.

75 Cf. Andreas J. Beck, Gisbertus Voetius (1589-1676). Sein Theologieverständnis und seine Gotteslehre (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 149-151 (on principles in Voetius, see also 166-174). Idem, “Rationalität und Scholastik,“ 278-280.

Aza Goudriaan, Reformed Orthodoxy and Philosophy, 1625-1750: Gisbertus Voetius, Petrus van Mastricht, and Anthonius Driessen (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 75-76. On the position of Franciscus Junius, who influenced Voetius, see Willem J. van Asselt, “The Fundamental Meaning of Theology: Archetypal and Ectypal Theology in Seventeenth-Century Reformed Thought,” Westminster Theological Journal 64 (2002), 319-335.

73

Historical Observations on Principles of Theology

25

4. The Principle of Protestantism The nineteenth century produced a further twist in the history of theological principles, when Protestant theology started claiming two principles of Protestantism (or two different sides of one principle). Early in the century, German theologians started making a distinction between a material principle of Protestantism, namely the doctrine of justification or salvation by grace, and a formal principle of Protestantism, namely Scripture. This initiative to distinguish between a material and a formal principle was new and the early genesis of the theory that justification and Scripture were these principles is complicated. Albrecht Ritschl (1822–1889), who considered the theory “apocryphal,” reconstructed its history in 1876, and later historiography has confirmed Ritschl’s conclusion that the theory did not yet exist before the nineteenth century.76 August Twesten (1789–1876), a former student of Friedrich Schleiermacher, had a significant role in the development of this theory, and it may be worthwhile to take a quick look at some features of the theory as he formulated it in his comments on the dogmatic handbook written by Wilhelm M.L. de Wette. Twesten started by distinguishing the subjective principle of Protestantism from the objective principle that he subdivided into a material principle on the one hand, and a formal principle on the other. The first thing to note here is that Twesten described the material principle as a starting point for deduction: “the essential foundational doctrine to which all doctrines point and from which their particular modification and position in Protestantism can be understood.” This statement implies the birth of a central doctrine (the “Mittelpunct des ganzen Systems,” 278) as an organizing principle of systematic theology as a whole. This is very different from what previous generations

Albrecht Ritschl, “Ueber die beiden Principien des Protestantismus. Antwort auf eine 25 Jahre alte Frage,” in Gesammelte Aufsätze, vol. 1 (Freiburg: J.C.B. Mohr, 1893), 234-247, there 235. For an earlier view, see N.C. Kist’s extensive note “VII. Historisch overzigt der onderzoekingen naar het grondbeginsel der Hervorming,” appended to his article “De beginselen en de nog onvoltooide toestand der kerkhervorming uit hare benamingen afgeleid,” Nederlandsch archief voor kerkelijke geschiedenis 12 (1841), 91-151, there 189-215. Cf. e.g. Ragnar Holte, Die Vermittlungstheologie. Ihre theologischen Grundbegriffe kritisch untersucht (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1965), 150-175; Lauster, Prinzip und Methode, 82-93; Dorothea-Henriette NoordveldLorenz, Gewissen und Kirche: Zum Protestantismusverständnis von Daniel Schenkel (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 105-134.

76

26

Beyond Demonstration

understood by a principle of theology. The doctrine that has this organizing role, according to Twesten, is the doctrine of justification by faith. The second thing to note is that in Twesten’s argument, the material principle comes first; the formal principle is mentioned next, which is the critical reference to “the original revelation in Scripture,” which Twesten treats as a corollary of the material principle by saying that the source of justification is also the source of illumination.77 On the contemporaneous Dutch scene, the approach of Twesten and others was shared by the Groningen theology of the period. Abraham Boon (1813–1869), a nephew of Petrus Hofstede de Groot (1802–1886), one of the leaders of the Groningen school of theology, wrote a doctoral dissertation on the twofold principle of the sixteenth-century Reformation—a work that was supervised and applauded

by Hofstede de Groot78 and later quoted in German literature on the topic.79 Boon considered salvation by grace the primary principle, followed by the other principle, the source of Holy Scripture. According to Boon it was acceptable to speak of a material and formal principle, but he preferred the names of positive (the material principle of grace) and negative (the freedom to use Scripture) principle, while the latter was not in fact a principle but aiding the principle of grace in a negative manner, namely by denying obedience to the pope. In fact, there was only one principle, according to Boon: ”the Christian belongs to Christ.”80 August Detlev Christian Twesten, Vorlesungen über die Dogmatik der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche, nach dem Compendium des Herrn Dr. W.M.L. de Wette, vol. 1 (Hamburg: Friedrich Perthes, 1826), 277-285 (“Princip und Character des Protestantismus”). K.F.A. Kahnis described the material principle as “the fundamental doctrine from which all the others should be deduced (die Grundlehre, aus welcher alle anderen abzuleiten sind)”; Ueber die Principien des Protestantismus. Reformationsprogramm (Leipzig: Dörffling & Franke, 1865), 36.

78 P. Hofstede de Groot, “Geschiedkundige nasporingen, of de kerkhervorming in de zestiende eeuw uitgegaan zij van het vrije Bijbel-onderzoek of van het vrije onderzoek des Evangelies, en aanwijzing van het wezenlijk belang, voor de kennis der kerkhervorming en de bevordering van het echte christendom, dit onderscheid wel op te merken,” Waarheid in liefde (1840), 677-764, there 733-742 on Boon’s dissertation: Abraham Boon, Dissertatio theologica de duplici principio unde in ecclesia emendanda exierunt saec. XVI reformatores (Groningen: W. Zuidema, 1839). Cf. J. Vree, De Groninger godgeleerden. De oorsprongen en de eerste periode van hun optreden (1820-1843) (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1984), 225-226, 280-284.

79 I.A. Dorner, Das Princip unsrer Kirche nach dem innern Verhältnis seiner zwey Seiten (Kiel: Universitäts-Buchhandlung, 1841), 4, 51, 52; Kahnis, Ueber die Principien des Protestantismus, 4.

80 Boon, De duplici principio, 134-135. The Leiden Church historian N.C. Kist (“Historisch overzigt,” 209) criticized Boon’s “betoog, dat bij Luther, maar tevens bij al de overige Hervormers, het hoofdbeginsel waarvan zij uitgingen, geweest is de leer van Gods genade in Christus, terwijl het gezag der Heilige Schrift, slechts als bijkomend beginsel, daaraan door hen later is toegevoegd, om het eerste te handhaven: [het] brengt ons slechts op een vroeger standpunt terug van het onderzoek, waarom het hier te doen is. Het miskent niet slechts het opmerkelijk verschil der beide hoofdrigtingen, welke de Kerkhervorming genomen heeft, en neemt het kenmerkende der verschillende Hervormers onderling weg, maar het verwart ook het hoofdbeginsel van hunne Dogmatiek, met dat, van waar zij zelven zijn uitgegaan. Het laat de vraag onaangeroerd, hoe zij, buiten den Bijbel om tot hun zoogenaamd Hoofdbeginsel gekomen zijn? of, indien dit door den Bijbel geschied zij, wat dan het eigenlijk was, hetgeen hen naar den Bijbel en het Evangelie heeft heengedreven?” (emphasis there).

77

Historical Observations on Principles of Theology

27

The idea that Protestantism had a material and a formal principle has been very influential. Jörg Lauster has described the “stubborn” presence of the distinction in dogmatic works up until the twenty-first century as “a late victory, as it were, of the Vermittlungstheologie.”81 From a historical viewpoint, however, what needs to be avoided is a transfer of the nineteenth-century theory back into the early modern period that did not know the distinction.82 What is problematic for historians and systematicians alike is the claim that within Protestant theology, a specific doctrine can be identified from which the other doctrines can be deduced. The notion that the doctrine of predestination was the central dogma of Reformed theology has produced a damaging historiography that today has been mostly abandoned for good reason.83 From the perspective of the earlier history the “sectarian” character of the nineteenth-century discussion is remarkable: what used to be principles of theology tout court became principles of Protestantism specifically. Wolfhart Pannenberg, a twentieth-century Lutheran theologian, has rejected this approach, arguing that the Reformation was only interested in restoring the “Christian identity of Christianity,” and for Christians there can only be one principle: Scripture, from which the doctrine of justification by faith is dependent and derived.84

Lauster, Prinzip und Methode, 83: “höchst erstaunlich und gleichsam ein später Sieg der Vermittlungstheologie.”

E.g. Reimund Sdzuj, Historische Studien zur Interpretationsmethodologie der frühen Neuzeit (Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 1997), 27: “Die theologischen Kontroversen über das protestantische Formalprinzip im ausgehenden 16. und beginnenden 17. Jahrhundert”; 38 n. 54. Carl E. Braaten, Principles of Lutheran Theology, 1st ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 2-3: “Whereas for Luther the material principle of Scripture, namely justification through faith alone, was primary, for orthodoxy the formal principle of Scripture, namely, that it is verbatim the inspired Word of God took precedence.” An older example is I.A. Dorner’s Geschichte der protestantischen Theologie, besonders in Deutschland, nach ihrer principiellen Bewegung und im Zusammenhang mit dem religiösen, sittlichen und intellectuellen Leben betrachtet (München: J.G. Cotta, 1867), where Dorner discussed such themes as the “Formale und materiale Seite des evangelischen Princips in Luthers Glaubensleben” (212), and the later “Geschichte des reformatorischen Princips” (539).

83 Cf. Richard A. Muller, After Calvin. Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), chapters 4 and 5, refuting especially the Reformed theologian Alexander Schweizer (1808-1888) and his followers.

84 Pannenberg, “Das protestantische Prinzip,” 187-188.

81 82

28

Beyond Demonstration

5. Epilogue The principles of theology did by no means disappear in the twentieth century, as a few examples may suffice to show. Joseph Ratzinger discussed the “formal principles of Christianity” or the “formal principles of Catholicism,” which terminology suggests that Ratzinger was influenced by the nineteenth-century language about a formal principle identified with Scripture in Protestant theology—especially since Ratzinger mentioned Scripture and tradition in this context.85 The Lutheran theologian Carl Braaten published Principles of Lutheran theology in which he discussed a series of eight principles, starting with a “canonical principle.”86 While the first principle reveals the persistence of the late medieval principle of the canonical Scripture, the other principles indicate a much less specific use of the concept. A broad use of principles is also visible in the Anglican theologian John Macquarrie’s work Principles of Christian Theology, which does not mention the term “principle” in its index and rarely uses the term apart from the title. In NeoCalvinism, however, the principle of theology was front and center. Abraham Kuyper devoted a long chapter of his Encyclopaedie der heilige Godgeleerdheid to the “principium theologiae.”87 Few early twentieth-century authors devoted as much attention to principles as did Herman Bavinck in his Gereformeerde Dogmatiek. In the final edition of volume one, nearly seventy percent of the volume was concerned with principles: first “principles in general,” then what Bavinck called the “external principle (principium externum),” which is revelation in Scripture, and finally the “internal principle (principium internum),” which is faith.88 More recently, a similar identification of theological principles can be found in the work of John Webster.89

Joseph Ratzinger, Theologische Prinzipienlehre. Bausteine zur Fundamentaltheologie, 2nd ed. (Donauwörth: Erich Wewel, 2005).

Carl Braaten, Principles of Lutheran Theology, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007). Braaten discusses the canonical, confessional, ecumenical, trinitarian, christocentric, sacramental, law/gospel and two-kingdoms principles. The trinitarian principle was not yet discussed in the first edition (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989).

87 A. Kuyper, Encyclopaedie der heilige Godgeleerdheid, vol. 2 (Amsterdam: J.A. Wormser, 1894), 291-511.

88 H. Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, vol. 1, 5th ed. (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1967), 180-591. According to Bavinck, ibid., 471, the principium essendi of “religion and theology” is God; the principium cognoscendi externum (also called principium instrumentale) is “the objective revelation in Christ, laid down in Scripture.” Cf. Van den Belt, Authority, 244.

89 John Webster, “Principles of Systematic Theology,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 11 (2009), 56-71.

85

86

Historical Observations on Principles of Theology

29

However, an investigation of the function of principles of theology in modern and contemporary theology falls outside the scope of the present lecture.

When we take a step back to review the development that we have just considered, it seems that increased conceptual precision and changing theological agendas go a long way to explain the different positions that were taken. If principles needed to be propositions, it was natural to identify the articles of faith as such, as did William of Auxerre. The Aristotelian criteria of priority and immediacy are not met then, however, since the articles of faith seem derived, or selected, from a more fundamental or broader revelation. It is, therefore, understandable that medieval theologians started to consider the divinely inspired Scripture as the principle of theology, a development that became the dominant position in the Reformation.

Aristotle’s criteria for principles that had conditioned the introduction of principles into Christian theology, were still maintained to some extent. It is not hard to see why Aristotle’s account on principles in Posterior Analytics 1.2 could seem attractive.

The issue of self-evidence was not stressed there, which facilitated the acceptance of the concept. Here was a framework that made it possible, in a structural way, to relate theology to the other sciences, since all of them had principles. The criteria of immediacy and priority made it mandatory to go ad fontes; the indemonstrability of the principle removed it from the control of discursive reason; the explanatory significance of the principle suggested that theological propositions were to be derived from the principle and do justice to it. The combination of these factors seems particularly fortunate and may explain why this particular element of Aristotle’s Organon has continued to play a role throughout the history of Christian theology.

Still, theological agendas changed as well. The move away from Scripture as first principle that is visible in Reformed writers such as Röell and Vitringa can be understood in part by the Cartesian emphasis on subjective thinking as a starting point for metaphysics. The nineteenth-century “principle of Protestantism” with its prioritizing of justification before Scripture has been explained in part by the influence of biblical criticism.90 These later developments weakened the classical Pannenberg, “Das protestantische Prinzip,” 187; the emphasis on the Protestant character of the principle reflected the attempt at ecclesiastical unity between Lutheran and Reformed branches of Protestantism: Holte, Vermittlungstheologie, 152.

90

30

Beyond Demonstration

theological notion that humans need to learn “about God from God,” a notion that was well aligned with the requirements of immediacy and priority that characterize principles in Aristotle’s description.

One aspect that may deserve specific attention today, in my view, is the Aristotelian notion that principles are indemonstrable. The indemonstrable character of the principle was emphasized by Clement of Alexandria and was not forgotten in early modern theology. It is probably not the historian’s task to identify the unrealized potential of any given historical doctrine but if I were asked to speak about the relevance today of the history that we have just discussed the issue of indemonstrability seems to recommend itself for further reflection. Here we have, in the heart of the ancient philosophy of science and in its long reception history, the recognition that the principle of knowledge is beyond demonstration. The Christian application was of course not something Aristotle himself had in mind, but it can nonetheless be linked with elements of his theory. Clement of Alexandria articulated the need for faith in God who makes himself known as first Principle by letting his voice be heard. This suggests that faith is needed before knowledge can be acquired (in fact, Aristotle himself mentioned belief,

πιστεύειν, repeatedly in

Analytica posteriora 1.2-3). This resembles surprisingly closely a Christian program that originated in a totally different context, namely Augustine’s motto “I believe in order to understand (credo ut intelligam)” and Anselm’s program of faith seeking understanding (fides quaerens intellectum), which is the motto of ETF Leuven. An epistemological reliance on indemonstrable principles is certainly different from a believer’s resting upon God, but it is not hard to see that the two are compatible.

Thus, piety and science could well be joined together. Abraham’s faithful reliance on God’s promise that he would have a son was not based on prior demonstration.91 Abraham believed God. Cf. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 7.2, trans. A. Cleveland Coxe in Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, vol. 1 (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004), 198, slightly modified: “… he who has read them [i.e. the writings of the prophets] is very much helped in his knowledge of the principles (περὶ ἀρχῶν) and ends of things (καὶ περὶ τέλους), and of those matters which the philosopher ought to know, provided he has believed them (πιστεύσαντα ἐκείνοις). For they [the prophets] did not use demonstrations in their treatises (οὐ γὰρ μετὰ ἀποδείξεως πεποίηνται τότε τοὺς λόγους), seeing that they were witnesses to the truth above all demonstration, and worthy of belief (ἅτε ἀνωτέρω πάσης ἀποδείξεως ὂντες ἀξιόπιστοι μάρτυρες τῆς ἀληθείας)…”; Greek text and commentary in J.C.M. van Winden, An Early Christian Philosopher. Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho, Chapters One to Nine (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1971), 14 and 114-115.

91

Historical Observations on Principles of Theology

31

32

Beyond Demonstration

Word of Thanks At the end of this lecture I want to say a few words of thanks. First of all, I want to thank the Board of Trustees of the Evangelische Theologische Faculty Leuven for appointing me as a guest professor of historical theology. I am very grateful to the Board for entrusting this responsibility to me. I also want to express my gratitude to the executive administration that initially endorsed the appointment in 2019: Rector and Dean professor Andreas J. Beck, the vice-deans professors Maria Verhoeff and Jelle Creemers, and administrative director Gerson Veldhuizen. Meanwhile, professor Jos de Kock has taken up the office of Rector. I also want to thank him for his support and leadership.

At ETF Leuven my work will mainly be connected with the Institute of PostReformation Studies, to which in past years professors Willem van Asselt and Antoon Vos, among others, have made significant contributions. I have known the Instituteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s director, professor Beck, for a long time. I appreciate his scholarship, collegiality, and friendship, and I look forward to a productive collaboration. I also want to thank professor Beck and Dr. Philip J. Fisk for valuable suggestions and feedback during the preparation of this lecture. I look forward to continued teamwork within the Institute with team members Dr. Fisk and Dr. Dolf te Velde, as well as within the Classic Reformed Theology Research Group.92 I thank the staff at ETF for their assistance in preparation of this ceremony.

Over the past years, my academic work has been furthered by the collaboration and exchanges with colleagues and students at VU Amsterdam. I thank them for their collegiality and for thought-provoking conversations.

On this occasion I also want to pay tribute to a scholar who had a significant influence on my academic development: Professor Johan Hendrik (Han) Adriaanse, who taught philosophy of religion at Leiden University and who was a great and dedicated mentor ever since I attended a masterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s course that he taught on the 92

See https://www.classic-reformed-theology.org/

Historical Observations on Principles of Theology

33

Christology of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. He died eight years ago. I remember him with profound respect and gratitude.

A professional life is also shaped in many ways by family life, and so I want to thank my parents for their loving support, for what they have taught me and for their prayer. I also thank my parents-in-law for their encouragement, prayer, and wisdom.

As a family we know how illness accentuates the preciousness of time and of other gifts of God - including the gift of trusting, in difficult circumstances, in God as a “rock and salvation” (Psalm 62).

I thank my wife, Anne-Marie, for her steadfast love. With Willem Diederik, Nathan, and Amélie we thank the God who guides our lives.

34

Beyond Demonstration

Historical Observations on Principles of Theology

35

Bibliography Althaus, Paul. Die Prinzipien der deutschen reformierten Dogmatik im Zeitalter der aristotelischen Scholastik. Leipzig 1914; repr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1967.

Alting, Heinrich. Problemata theologica, tam theoretica, quam practica. In Scripta theologica Heidelbergensia. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: Caspar Commelin, 1662.

Anstey, Peter R. “Introduction.” In The Idea of Principles in Early Modern Thought.

Interdisciplinary Perspectives, edited by Peter R. Anstey, 1-15. Routledge Studies in Seventeenth-Century Philosophy 16. London: Routledge, 2017.

— “Experimental Philosophy and the Principles of Natural Religion in England, 16671720.” In The Idea of Principles in Early Modern Thought, 246-270.

Armitage, David. “What’s the Big Idea? Intellectual History and the Longue Durée.”

History of European Ideas 38 (2012): 493-507.

— Civil Wars. A History in Ideas. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017.

Asselt, Willem J. van. The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669), translated by Raymond A. Blacketer. Leiden: Brill, 2001.

— “The Fundamental Meaning of Theology: Archetypal and Ectypal Theology in Seventeenth-Century Reformed Thought.” Westminster Theological Journal 64 (2002): 319-335.

Backus, Irena. “Lay and Theological Reception of Clement of Alexandria in the Reformation. From Gentien Hervet to Fénélon.” In Between Lay Piety and Academic Theology. Studies Presented to Christoph Burger on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, edited by Ulrike Hascher-Burger, August den Hollander, and Wim Janse, 353-371. Brill’s Studies in Church History 46. Leiden: Brill, 2010.

Bavinck, H. Gereformeerde Dogmatiek. 5th ed. Vol. 1. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1967.

Barnes, Jonathan, ed. The Complete Works of Aristotle. The Revised Oxford Translation.

2 vols. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985.

Beck, Andreas J. Gisbertus Voetius (1589-1676). Sein Theologieverständnis und seine Gotteslehre. Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte 92. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007.

36

Beyond Demonstration

— “Rationalität und Scholastik in der reformierten Orthodoxie, insbesondere bei Keckermann, Voetius und Coccejus.” In Reformation und Rationalität, edited by Herman J. Selderhuis and Ernst-Joachim Waschke, 263-288. Refo500 Academic Studies 17. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Bellarmine, Robert. Disputationes de controversiis christianae fidei adversus hujus temporis haereticos. Vol. 1. Ingolstadt: David Sartorius, 1587.

Belt, Henk van den. The Authority of Scripture in Reformed Theology. Truth and Trust.

Studies in Reformed Theology 17. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

Beutel, Albrecht. “Heerbrand, Jacob.” RGG 4th ed. Vol. 3. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000, 1502-1503.

Boon, Abraham. Dissertatio theologica de duplici principio unde in ecclesia emendanda exierunt saec. XVI reformatores. Groningen: W. Zuidema, 1839.

Braaten, Carl E. Principles of Lutheran Theology. 1st ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989; 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007.

Bradshaw, David. “Aristotelianism.” in Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity Online, edited by David G. Hunter, Paul J.J. van Geest, and Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte (consulted online on 09 October 2020 <http://dx.doi.org.vu-nl.idm.oclc. org/10.1163/2589-7993_EECO_SIM_00000286>).

Brink, Gijsbert van den. “Prolegomena.” In The Oxford Handbook of Reformed Theology, edited by Michael Allen and Scott R. Swain, 373-388. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cano, Melchior. De locis theologicis libri duodecim. Salamanca: Mathias Gastius, 1563.

Clark, Elizabeth A. Clement’s Use of Aristotle. The Aristotelian Contribution to Clement of Alexandria’s Refutation of Gnosticism. Texts and Studies in Religion 1. New York: Edwin Mellen, 1977.

Clement of Alexandria. Stromata. Translated by W. Wilson. In Ante-Nicene Fathers [ANF], edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Vol. 2. New York 1885; repr. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004.

Detel, Wolfgang, ed. Aristoteles, Zweite Analytik, Analytica posteriora. Griechisch Deutsch. Philosophische Bibliothek 933. Hamburg: Meiner, 2011.

Dijn, Annelien de. Freedom. An Unruly History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2020.

Historical Observations on Principles of Theology

37

Dorner, I.A. Das Princip unsrer Kirche nach dem innern Verhältnis seiner zwey Seiten.

Kiel: Universitäts-Buchhandlung, 1841.

— Geschichte der protestantischen Theologie, besonders in Deutschland, nach ihrer principiellen Bewegung und im Zusammenhang mit dem religiösen, sittlichen und intellectuellen Leben betrachtet. München: J.G. Cotta, 1867.

Edwards, Mark. Aristotle and Early Christian Thought. Studies in Philosophy and Theology in Late Antiquity. London: Routledge, 2019.

Frank, Günter. Topik als Methode der Dogmatik. Antike – Mittelalter – Frühe Neuzeit.

Theologische Bibliothek Töpelmann 179. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017.

Gerhard, Johann. Loci theologici, edited by Eduard Preuss. Vol. 1. Berlin: Schlawitz, 1863.

Giulea, Dragoş Andrei. “Apprehending ‘Demonstrations’ from the First Principle: Clement of Alexandria’s Phenomenology of Faith.” The Journal of Religion 89 (2009): 187-213.

Godfrey of Fontaines. Le huitième quodlibet de Godefroid de Fontaines (texte inédit), edited by J. Hoffmans. Les philosophes Belges 4. Louvain: Institut supérieur de philosophie, 1924.

Goudriaan, Aza. Reformed Orthodoxy and Philosophy, 1625-1750: Gisbertus Voetius, Petrus van Mastricht, and Anthonius Driessen. Brill’s Series in Church History 26.

Leiden: Brill, 2006.

— “The Reformation and Early ‘Historical Theology’: Heinrich Alting and John Forbes of Corse.” In Reforming Church History. The Rise of the Reformation as an Era in Early Modern European Historiography, edited by Daniel Gehrt, Markus Matthias, and Sascha Salatowsky. Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag, forthcoming.

Gregory of Rimini. Lectura super primum et secundum sententiarum, edited by A. Damasus Trapp and Venicio Marcolino. Vol. 1. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1981.

Guldi, Jo, and David Armitage. The History Manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Hägglund, Bengt. Die Heilige Schrift und ihre Deutung in der Theologie Johann Gerhards. Eine Untersuchung über das altlutherische Schriftverständnis. Lund: Gleerup, 1951.

Heerbrand, Jacob. Compendium theologiae, nunc passim auctum et methodi quaestionibus tractatum. Tübingen: Georg Gruppenbach, 1578.

38

Beyond Demonstration

Heimgartner, Martin. Pseudojustin – Über die Auferstehung. Text und Studie.

Patristische Texte und Studien 54. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2001.

Heine, Ronald E. “The Alexandrians.” In The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature, edited by Frances Young, Lewis Ayres, and Andrew Louth, 117-130.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Hofstede de Groot, P. “Geschiedkundige nasporingen, of de kerkhervorming in de zestiende eeuw uitgegaan zij van het vrije Bijbel-onderzoek of van het vrije onderzoek des Evangelies, en aanwijzing van het wezenlijk belang, voor de kennis der kerkhervorming en de bevordering van het echte christendom, dit onderscheid wel op te merken.” Waarheid in liefde (1840): 677-764.

Holte, Ragnar. Die Vermittlungstheologie. Ihre theologischen Grundbegriffe kritisch untersucht. Studia doctrinae christianae Upsaliensia 3. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1965.

Hyperius, Andreas. Topica theologica. Wittenberg: Petrus Seitz, 1565.

— Methodi theologiae sive praecipuorum Christianae religionis locorum communium libri tres. Basel: Ioannes Oporinus, 1567.

Huning, Alois. “Per se notum.” In Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, edited

by Joachim Ritter and Karlfried Gründer, 262-265. Vol. 7. Darmstadt: WBG, 1989.

Kahnis, K.F.A. Ueber die Principien des Protestantismus. Reformationsprogramm.

Leipzig: Dörffling & Franke, 1865.

Kist, N.C. “VII. Historisch overzigt der onderzoekingen naar het grondbeginsel der Hervorming,” note to his article “De beginselen en de nog onvoltooide toestand der kerkhervorming uit hare benamingen afgeleid.” Nederlandsch archief voor kerkelijke geschiedenis 12 (1841): 189-215.

Kobusch, Theo. Die Philosophie des Hoch- und Spätmittelalters. Geschichte der Philosophie 5. München: C.H. Beck, 2011.

Köpf, Ulrich. Die Anfänge der theologischen Wissenschaftstheorie im 13. Jahrhundert.

Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 49. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1974.

Klöckner, Thomas. Heinrich Alting (1583-1644). Lebensbild und Bedeutung für die reformierte Historiographie und Dogmengeschichtsschreibung des 17. Jahrhunderts.

Reformed Historical Theology 56. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2019.

Kuntze, Simon. Die Mündlichkeit der Schrift. Eine Rekonstruktion des lutherischen Schriftprinzips. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2020.

Historical Observations on Principles of Theology

39

Kuyper, A. Encyclopaedie der heilige Godgeleerdheid. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: J.A. Wormser, 1894.

Lang, Albert. Die theologische Prinzipienlehre der mittelalterlichen Scholastik. Freiburg: Herder, 1964.

— Die Entfaltung des apologetischen Problems in der Scholastik des Mittelalters.

Freiburg: Herder, 1962.

Lauster, Jörg. Prinzip und Methode. Die Transformation des protestantischen Schriftprinzips durch die historische Kritik von Schleiermacher bis zur Gegenwart.

Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie 46. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.

Levy, Ian Christopher. Holy Scripture and the Quest for Authority at the End of the Middle Ages. Reading the Scriptures. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 2012.

Lieburg, Fred van. “In saecula saeculorum. Long-Term Perspectives on Religious History.” Church History and Religious Culture 98 (2018): 319-343.

Lubbertus, Sibrandus. De principiis christianorum dogmatum libri septem, scholastice et theologice collati cum disputationibus Roberti Bellarmini Iesuitae Romani.

Franeker: Aegidius Radaeus, 1591.

Luther, Martin. Assertio omnium articulorum M. Lutheri per bullam Leonis X. novissimam damnatorum. In D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe.

Weimarer Ausgabe [WA]. Vol. 7. Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus, 1897.

— De servo arbitrio, WA 18. Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus, 1908.

Marckius, Johannes. Compendium theologiae christianae didactico-elencticum. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Gerardus Borstius, 1690.

Marion, Jean-Luc. Givenness and Revelation. Trans. Stephen E. Lewis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.

Markschies, Christoph. Kaiserzeitliche christliche Theologie und ihre Institutionen.

Prolegomena zu einer Geschichte der antiken christlichen Theologie. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009.

McKirahan, Richard D. Principles and Proofs. Aristotle’s Theory of Demonstrative Science. Princeton Legacy Library. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2017.

McMahon, Darrin M. Happiness. A History. New York: Grove, 2006.

40

Beyond Demonstration

Moor, Bernhardinus de. Commentarius perpetuus in Johannis Marckii Compendium theologiae didactico-elencticum. Vol. 1. Leiden: Johannes Hasebroek, 1761.

Mosheim, Johann Lorenz von. Elementa theologiae dogmaticae, edited by C.E. de Windheim. Nürnberg: G.P. Monath, 1758.

Muller, Richard A. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. The Rise and Development of Reformed Dogmatics, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2003.

— “Scholasticism Protestant and Catholic: Francis Turretin on the Object and Principles of Theology.” Church History 55 (1986): 193-205.

— After Calvin. Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition. Oxford Studies in Historical Theology Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Niederbacher, Bruno, and Gerhard Leibold, eds. Theologie als Wissenschaft im Mittelalter. Texte, Übersetzungen, Kommentare. Münster: Aschendorff, 2006.

Noordveld-Lorenz, Dorothea-Henriette.

Gewissen und Protestantismusverständnis von Daniel Schenkel. Beiträge Theologie 176. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014.

Kirche: Zum zur historischen

Pannenberg, Wolfhart. “Das protestantische Prinzip im ökumenischen Dialog (1991).”

In Beiträge zur Systematischen Theologie. Vol. 3, Kirche und Ökumene, 186-193.

Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 2000.

Perkins, William. Problema de Romanae fidei ementito Catholicismo. In Opera.

Geneva: Petrus and Jacobus Chouët, 1611.

Pierre d’Ailly. Quaestiones super primum, tertium et quartum librum sententiarum. I: Principia et questio circa prologum, edited by Monica Brinzei. CCCM 258. Turnhout: Brepols, 2013.

Polanus of Polansdorf. Amandus, Syntagma theologiae christianae. Hanau: Claudius Marnius, 1610.

Prügl, Thomas. “Medieval Biblical Principia as Reflections on the Nature of Theology.”

In What is “Theology” in the Middle Ages? Religious Cultures of Europe (11th-15th Centuries) as Reflected in their Self-Understanding, edited by Mikolaj Olszewski, 253-276. Archa verbi: Subsidia 1. Münster: Aschendorff, 2007.

Ratschow. Carl Heinz, Lutherische Dogmatik zwischen Reformation und Aufklärung.

Vol. 1. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1964.

Historical Observations on Principles of Theology

41

Ratzinger, Joseph. Theologische Prinzipienlehre. Bausteine zur Fundamentaltheologie.

2nd ed. Donauwörth: Erich Wewel, 2005.

Reinhard, Johannes, Die Prinzipienlehre der lutherischen Dogmatik von 1700 bis 1750 (Hollatz, Buddeus, Mosheim). Beitrag zur Geschichte der altprotestantischen Theologie und zur Vorgeschichte des Rationalismus. Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1906.

Ritschl, Albrecht. “Ueber die beiden Principien des Protestantismus. Antwort auf eine 25 Jahre alte Frage.” In Gesammelte Aufsätze. Vol. 1, 234-247. Freiburg: J.C.B. Mohr, 1893.

Röell, Herman Alexander. Oratio inauguralis de religione rationali. Franeker: Johannes Gyselaar, 1686.

— Dissertatio de religione rationali, ed. secunda. Franeker: Johannes Gyselaar, 1689.

Schmid, Heinrich. Die Dogmatik der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche dargestellt und aus den Quellen belegt, edited by Horst Georg Pöhlmann. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1990.

Schüssler, Hermann. Der Primat der heiligen Schrift als theologisches und kanonistisches Problem im Spätmittelalter. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für europäische Geschichte Mainz 86. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1977.

Schulze, Manfred. “‘Via Gregorii’ in Forschung und Quellen.” In Gregor von Rimini, Werk und Wirkung bis zur Reformation, edited by Heiko A. Oberman, 1-126. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1981.

Sdzuj, Reimund. Historische Studien zur Interpretationsmethodologie der frühen Neuzeit. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 1997.

Sluis, Jacob van. Herman Alexander Röell. Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy, 1988.

Spijker, W. van ’t. Principe, methode en functie van de theologie bij Andreas Hyperius.

Apeldoornse studies 26. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1990.

Stählin, Otto, ed. Clemens Alexandrinus, dritter Band, Stromata Buch VII und VIII [GCS], edited by Ludwig Früchtel and Ursula Treu. 2nd ed. Berlin: Akademieverlag, 1970.

Suárez, Francisco. De fide theologica, 5.3.1. In Opera omnia, edited by Carolus Berton.

Vol. 12. Paris: Vivès, 1858.

42

Beyond Demonstration

Telfer, Charles K. Wrestling with Isaiah: The Exegetical Methodology of Campegius Vitringa (1659-1722). Reformed Historical Theology 38. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016.

Thomas Aquinas. Summa theologica, edited by J.-P. Migne. 4 vols. Paris: Migne, 18611862.

Tipton, Stephen Bradly. “The Ground, Method, and Goal of Amandus Polanus’ (15611610) Doctrine of God: An Historical and Contextual Analysis.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Evangelische Theologische Faculteit Leuven, 2020.

Troeltsch, Ernst. Vernunft und Offenbarung bei Johann Gerhard und Melanchthon (1891) in Ernst Troeltsch, Schriften zur Theologie und Religionsphilosophie (18881902), edited by Christian Albrecht et al. Kritische Gesamtausgabe 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009.

Twesten, August Detlev Christian. Vorlesungen über die Dogmatik der EvangelischLutherischen Kirche, nach dem Compendium des Herrn Dr. W.M.L. de Wette. Vol. 1. Hamburg: Friedrich Perthes, 1826.

Vitringa, Campegius. Aphorismi quibus fundamenta sanctae theologiae comprehenduntur. In usus scholarum privatarum. Franeker: Johannes Gyselaar, 1688.

— Doctrina christianae religionis, per aphorismos summatim descripta, editio quarta.

Franeker: Franciscus Halma, 1702.

Vos, A., H. Veldhuis, E. Dekker, N.W. den Bok, A.J. Beck, eds. Duns Scotus on Divine Love. Texts and Commentary on Goodness and Freedom, God and Humans.

London: Routledge, 2017.

Vree, J. De Groninger godgeleerden. De oorsprongen en de eerste periode van hun optreden (1820-1843). Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1984.

Webster, John. “Principles of Systematic Theology.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 11 (2009): 56-71.

William of Auxerre. Summa aurea, liber quartus, edited by Jean Ribaillier. Grottaferrata: Editiones Collegii S. Bonaventurae, 1985.

Winden, J.C.M. van. An Early Christian Philosopher. Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho, Chapters One to Nine. Philosophia patrum 1. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1971.

Woude, C. van der. Sibrandus Lubbertus. Leven en werken, in het bijzonder naar zijn correspondentie. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1963.