The Best Theologians for Each Locus (Work in Progress)

Metaphysics: Senguerdius and Burgersdijk especially, Adam Steuart, Scotus, Zabarella, Keckermann, Gilbert Jack, Alsted, Bartholomew Mastri, Heereboord

Prolegomena - Junius and Voetius especially, Scotus, Keckermann, Van Mastricht, Hoornbeek, Antonius Andreas

— Sola Scriptura/Sufficiency of Scripture: Rutherford especially, Junius, Turretin

— Cessationism/Continuationism: Baxter, Vermigli, Thomas

— Theology, theoretical and/or practical?: Scotus, Voetius, Hoornbeek, Keckermann, Antonius Andreas

— Theology, genus: Scotus, Junius, Voetius, Antonius Andreas

Hermeneutics: Rutherford, Junius, Thomas, Domingo Banez, Gill, Witsius, Keach

Theology Proper - Voetius, Junius, Senguerdius, Van Mastricht, Hoornbeek, De Moor, Boyvin, Scotus, Bartholomew Mastri, Thomas, Baxter

— Formal distinction: Bartholomew Mastri especially, Scotus, Paulus Voet, Baxter

— Divine Ideas: Scotus especially, Voetius, Alsted

— Eternal Generation, communication of essence: Voetius, Turretin, Hoornbeek, Synopsis of Purer Theology, Thomas, Gomarus

— Psychological analogy of Trinity: Scotus, Keckermann, Daneau, Becanus, Voetius*

*I would want to say that Scripture at least virtually contains this, whereas I am not sure Voetius would say this as it seems unclear to me how he thinks we arrive at this conclusion, which he ultimately seems to hold to. And so I would not say it use useless to piety, it being truly a part of theology (though to be fair he denies it is “necessary” for the increase of piety which I suppose might be accepted in an absolute sense, but then so may many things).

— Logical ordering in Trinitarian generation/What constitutes a Divine person?*: Boyvin (preferred) | Voetius

*There are many different answers given to this question. Voetius's way, which I preferred until coming across Boyvin (a Scotist theologian) is as follows:

In the Father, can there be conceived distinctly according to the order or instants of nature: (1) a quasi-personifying principle or a quasi-personifying differentia, constitutive and divisive; (2) a ὑφιστάμενον, hypostasis or persona; (3) consequently, a proper personal work ad intra, or a proper notional action; (4) thence, as a result, a proper personal relation; (5) Finally, from those, the proper consequence, namely a personal order and mode of operating ad extra?

Response: We affirm.

Question: Are those: (1) innascibility (or a more fitting term, if one can be imagined), aseitas, or αὐτουποσασία; (2) the Father, or the first person which is the Father; (3) active generation and spiration; (4) paternity and the relation of spirator; (5) operation ad extra, namely a se through the Son and the Holy Spirit: to which pertains active sending?

Response: We affirm.

Boyvin, however deals thoroughly with what is substantially the same position in Chapter 4, Question 5 here:

Tractatus_de_deo_trino_-_boyvin

.pdf

Download PDF • 935KB

And thus I prefer his way until and unless I come across a better response. The main reasons for this are: 1) a “quasi-form” (the nature of which is unclear) is, presumably, an absolute, but all absolutes in God are common perfections shared by the whole essence and so cannot constitute the distinct persons. 2) the concern about the coherence of relations preceding persons can be done away with once one realizes that created relations presuppose really distinct extremes because they are accidents which inhere in a subject, but in God the relations are really identical to God/substantial and so are themselves subsistent and so “constitute the persons and refer them, such that by constituting they refer, and by referring they constitute." I think it's also worth noting Voetius wrote this in 1643 and I doubt would have held fiercely to it (indeed, it's clear he is not dogmatic on this).

Boyvin's ordering, to play off Voetius's way of setting things up would be: 1) paternity and the relation of spirator 2) the Father, or the first person which is the Father 3) active generation and spiration 4) inascibility 5) a personal order and mode of operating ad extra.

— What (rationally) is a divine person?: The essence distinct by mode (preferred): Zanchi, Voetius | Are modes: Keckermann

— Proper to speak of eternal law? No (preferred): Voetius*, Scotus | Yes: Junius

*Voetius's solution is best which calls it "divine right", limiting "law" to that which actually obliges creatures.

— Antecedent will: Turretin, Voetius, Banez

Decree - Turretin, Junius, Voetius, Thomas, Scotus, Davenant, Banez

— Order of: Infra (preferred): Turretin, Junius, Davenant | Supra: Voetius, Scotus, Bartholomew Mastri

— Middle Knowledge: Voetius, Turretin, Twisse

Creation - Bonaventure, Thomas, Van Mastricht, Voetius, Junius

— Possibility of eternal creation: Van Mastricht, Keckermann, Bonaventure, Turretin, Burgersdijk

— Image of God: Junius, Turretin, Thomas, Synopsis Purer Theology

— Original righteousness and grace: Junius especially, Charnock, Gerhard, Henry of Ghent, Tilenus, Turretin, Goodwin*, Louis le Blanc**

*Except, of course, his denial that Adam was promised a supernatural end.

**I have a few quibbles over some of his interpretations of various theologians and also his grasp of the importance of original righteousness being natural.

— Able to prove immortality of soul from reason?: Senguerdius, Turretin, Voetius, Thomas

— Soul really distinct from its powers?: For: Senguerdius (it seems), Zabarella, Burgersdijk (Natural Philosophy), Voetius| Against (preferred)*: Scotus, Bartholomew Mastri, Heereboord, Baxter, De Moor, Burgersdijk (Metaphysics)

*Note that this position requires one to deny entitative habits, at least properly speaking. One can still speak of grace affecting the “essence of the soul” and so view it as analogous to an entitative habit insofar as the essence is not really distinct from the powers (it's just that they're formally distinct), and so this doesn’t substantially change anything besides presentation. That is to say, the language of entitative habits could still be maintained seeing as one means that the essence, considered formally, is still affected by grace, even though the essence is not really distinct from the faculties. See Kennard's John Duns Scotus on Grace footnote 115 (I don't know the chapter).

— Rational, sensitive, vegatative souls really distinct?: For: Certain students of Burgersdijk, Zabarella | Against (preferred): Bartholomew Mastri, Voetius, Scotus, Burgersdijk

Providence - Turretin, Thomas, Voetius, Rutherford, Twisse, Theophilus Gale, Banez

Angels - Scotus especially*, Senguerdius, Voetius, Van Mastricht, Turretin, Peter Olivi, Bonaventure

*I except the details directly connected to his Averroist interpretation of the motion principle and subsequnet rejection of Aristotle's true motion principle. I am also somewhat symphathetic to the Thomist explanation for angelic obstinancy.

— Angelic covenant of works: Scotus, Voetius, Burman, Polanus

— Guardian angels: Synopsis of Purer Theology

Covenant of Works - Boston, Turretin, Witsius, Keach, Frans Burman, Petto, Patrick Gillespie, Colquhoun, Blackwood

— Nature of ex pacto merit: Patrick Gillespie, Frans Burman, Petto

— Adam's merit to be imputed to posterity: Boston, Petto

— Promise of reward offered only to Adam as federal head: Baxter, Petto

Mosaic Covenant - Keach, Petto, Blackwood

The Fall and Sin - Turretin, van Mastricht, Voetius, Davenant, Rutherford, Vermigli

— Need to be voluntary?: Turretin, Van Mastricht, Davenant, Rutherford, Voetius, Junius, Maccovius

— Concupiscence: Davenant, Turretin, Rutherford, Henry of Ghent, Gregory Rimini, Cajetan

— That, consequently, sinful dreams may be culpable insofar as caused by concupiscence: Rutherford, Voetius, Van Mastricht, Hoornbeek

— Primary first motions are acts: Synopsis of Purer Theology*

*I only include this because it interestingly provides a way we can speak of infants having "actual sin" as opposed to only the privation of the quality of original righteousness which nobody else seems to pick up on.

— Reatus culpae/poenae: Van Mastricht especially*, Owen, Turretin, Synopsis of Purer Theology

*It's helpful to note the distinction is often defined differently so that culpae is made equivalent to deformity and thus sometimes accepted by the Reformed (and thus no real disagreement exists among them), but Van Mastricht's formulation is the most precise and gives what one ultimately has to affirm.

— Transmission of: Thomas especially, Turretin, Voetius, Baron, Van Mastricht

— Contra Rome on venial/mortal: Baron, Turretin, Junius, Rutherford, Chamier

— Imputation of Adam’s sin?: Vermigli, Thomas, Chamier, Baxter

Covenant of Redemption- Willard, Owen, Turretin, Keach, Rutherford, Petto, Baxter, Vermigli*

*The concept of it

— Really distinct from Covenant of Grace?: Keach, Boston, Petto, Turretin

— Christ not formally/actually in covenant until incarnation and decree of the covenant is not formally that covenant: Vermigli*, Baxter, Willard

*Vermigli clearly and helpfully distinguishes that Christ was formally/actually mediator as incarnate and only virtually so in the decree prior to it in contrast to later theologians who were less clear here and sometimes seemed to suggest that Christ actually operated as mediator under the Old Covenant prior to incarnation.

— Holy Spirit not a party: Rutherford, Willard, Turretin, Baxter

— Merit of Christ: Patrick Gillespie, Frans Burman, Voetius, Van Mastricht, Witsius, Cocceius, Boston, Rutherford, Norton, Owen*

*Although he wrongly that denies Christ merited for Himself as well, but he does rightly perceive Christ’s merit was necessarily ex pacto as a creature.

Covenant of Grace - Owen, Turretin, Keach, Gillespie, Rutherford, Petto

— New Covenant=Covenant of Grace: Owen, Keach, Petto, Augustine, Thomas

— How conditional?: Turretin, Witsius, Rutherford, Davenant, Voetius, Owen

Christology - Van Mastricht, Scotus, Voetius, Turretin, Owen, Vermigli, Bartholomew Mastri, Synopsis of Purer Theology, Senguerdius

— Christ composite?: Bartholomew Mastri, Voetius, Scotus

— Christ's humanity subsist?: Van Mastricht, Senguerdius

— Can any divine person assume human nature?: Thomas, Scotus

— True man in death?: Thomas, Scotus, Turretin, Synopsis of Purer Theology, Voetius

— Contra Lutherans: Turretin, Van Mastricht

— Beatific vision in life?: Voetius, Turretin, Gomarus, Chamier

— Whether Christ's humanity is a physical or moral instrument of miracles & grace? (moral): Scotus, Turretin, Henry Jeanes

— Human nature of Christ an instrument of divinity: Turretin, Voetius

— Can multiple divine persons assume the same human nature?: For: Thomas | Against: (preferred): Van Mastricht, Scotus

— Can a divine person assume multiple human natures?: Thomas, Scotus

— Is created subsistence a negation?: No (slightly preferred) Senguerdius*, Zanchi | Yes: Bartholomew Mastri, Scotus

*Senguerdius seems to misunderstand that the Scotists hold divine subsistence is positive and the question is only about created subsistence.

Christ as Mediatior: Gillespie, Turretin, Rutherford, Vermigli, Voetius, Chamier, Synopsis of Purer Theology

— Mediator in both natures? (no, only human): Louis le Blanc

— Christ only formally/actually mediator as incarnate: Louis le Blanc, Vermigli

Atonement: Rutherford, Norton, Turretin, Voetius, Owen, Witsius

— Necessity of: Rutherford, Norton, Thomas, Twisse*

*Some of his arguments are not good.

— Extent of: Turretin, Rutherford, Maccovius, Owen, Voetius, Witsius

— Against proper temporal satisfactions, purgatory: Turretin, Synopsis of Purer Theology, Davenant

— Sufferings of the elect before conversion not proper punishments/satisfactory: Witsius, Voetius, Norton

Free Will - Voetius especially, Turretin, Burgersdijk, Junius, Rutherford, Banez, Heereboord, Maccovius

— Necessity of physical promotion: Banez, Heereboord, Voetius, Maccovius, Turretin, Theophilus Gale, Rutherford, Twisse, Thomas

— Intellect really distinct from will? No* (preferred): Scotus, Maccovius, Heereboord, De Moor, Burgersdijk (Metaphysics) | Yes: Zabarella, Burgersdijk (Natural Philosophy)

*If this is taken, it ought to be said that faith virtually contains the other theological virtues and is formally, not really distinct from them.

— Determination of the will by the intellect: Heereboord, Burgersdijk, Gregory of Valencia, Voetius, Maccovius

Effectual Call - Turretin, Voetius, Banez, Rutherford, Davenant, Cameron, Owen, Twisse, Baxter

— That the act of faith precedes and forms the infused habit: Cameron, Baxter (I am uncertain here, but sympathetic to affirming it, especially Cameron’s intellectualist construal)

Justification - Turretin, Owen, Rutherford, Junius, Davenant, Voetius, Boston*, Norton, Keach, Witsius

*He errs in holding that all future sins are actually and not just virtually remitted upon first believing. He may also err on the question of whether repentance precedes or follows justification/remission, which is a question I have chosen not to address here as the Reformed seem very divided on this (e.g. compare page 23 here with page 246 here). The two most intriguing formulations to me, at least for the present, are those of Thomas Gilbert on the one hand, and that of Anthony Tuckney in his Praelections (endorsed by Witsius) on the other hand; the former holding that no capacity for contracting legal guilt exists after initial justification and the latter holding that legal guilt is remitted only after the act of repentance as a medium and causa sine qua non for the applicative act of justification/remission to occur.

Sanctification - Davenant, Turretin, Owen, Rutherford, Witsius

— Good works, necessity of: Davenant, Turretin, Zanchi, Van Mastricht, Goodwin, Rutherford, Voetius, Anthony Burgess, Witsius

Saving Faith - Turretin, Keckermann, Vermigli, Voetius, Owen, Witsius, Gomarus

— Nature of: Voetius, Vermigli, Gomarus

— Relation to intellect and will: Voetius especially, Gomarus, Vermigli, Keckermann, Owen*

*I list him as he seems to give more to the intellect than the will, which is accurate as far as it goes, but he seems inconsistent at points and includes the will in believing.

— Does an act of the will command the intellect to assent in faith? No (preferrred): Vermigli, Scotus | Yes: Voetius, Thomas

— Supernatural/Theological virtues: Vermigli, Keckermann, Gomarus

— Faith formed by love: Vermigli, Turretin, Voetius

— Act of faith as the instrument (preferred): Maccovius, Voetius, Rutherford, Boston | Habit of faith as the instrument: Downame, Leigh

Repentance unto Salvation and Life - Turretin, van Mastricht, Owen, Willard, Rutherford, Bucanus, Boston

— Order of faith and repentance: Owen, Boston, Willard, Rutherford, Hoornbeek, Voetius, Bucanus, Trelcatius

Perseverance of the Saints - Turretin, Synopsis of Purer Theology

Assurance of Grace and Salvation - Louis le Blanc, Anthony Burgess

The Law of God - Turretin, Junius, Rutherford, Synopsis of Purer Theology, Vermigli, Thomas

— Natural law partly dispensable?: Against (slightly preferred, although I don’t think there is much difference here, especially as Turretin puts it): Turretin, Thomas | For: Voetius, Scotus

— Eutyphro: Voetius, Domingo de Soto, Álvarez, Zumel, Turretin, Pierre Marchant, Bartholomew Mastri, Rutherford

— Relation and order of Wisdom/Reason, divine will/command, justice/goodness: see above, also Twisse

— How human law binds: Rutherford, Gillespie, Voetius, Prynne

— General equity of capital crimes: Junius, Rutherford, Gillespie, Piscator, Beza, Cotton

— Sabbath: Cocceius especially, Gomarus, Rivet | Best defense of majority position: Synopsis of Purer Theology

— Images, of Christ: Vermigli, Zanchi

— Images, portraying God, theophanies, symbols, etc.: Vermigli, Zanchi, Heidegger, Calderwood, Gillespie, Rutherford

Gospel and Extent of Grace - Turretin, Rutherford, Owen, Synopsis of Purer Theology, Maccovius, Voetius

— Sufficient/resistable grace: Banez especially, Davenant, Álvarez, Turretin, Voetius, Synopsis of Purer Theology, Du Moulin

— Whether sin expels grace physically or morally? (morally): Scotus, Baron

— That the increase of and continuation in grace is moral and not physical: Scotus, Thomas Goodwin, Baxter

— Sincere offer: Turretin, Rutherford, Voetius

Christian Liberty and Conscience - Rutherford, Gillespie, Cotton, Voetius

Worship - Rutherford, Gillespie, Turretin, Voetius, Cotton, Willard, Synopsis of Purer Theology

— Musical instruments: Samuel Mather, Voetius

— Hymns: Keach

— Use of signs/objects in swearing: Willard

— Holidays: Gillespie, Rutherford, Voetius, Calderwood

— Bowing/kneeling: Rutherford, Cotton, Gillespie, Calderwood

— Contra latria/dulia: Synopsis of Purer Theology, Rutherford, Turretin, Gillespie, Louis le Blanc

— Anointing with oil: Isaac Chauncy, Robert MacWard

— Oaths/vows: Synopsis of Purer Theology, Rutherford, Gillespie, Voetius

Civil Magistrate - Junius, Turretin, Rutherford, Voetius, Gillespie, Cotton, William Bridge, Keckermann, Suarez, Baxter

— Resistance: Rutherford, Althusius, Prynne, Suarez

Marriage - Thomas especially, Scotus, Rutherford, Turretin, Dalrymple, Voetius, Gouge, Polanus, Edmund Bunnius

— Primary end of: Thomas, Scotus, Gouge, George Lawson, Polanus, Alsted

— Remarriage, divorce: Thomas, John Whitgift, Edmund Bunnius

— Essence of and impediments to: Voetius, Dalrymple, Polanus, Thomas

— Need parental consent for validity?: For: Perkins, Voetius, Beza | Against: Thomas, Dalrymple, Joseph Hall

— Not a sacrament: Turretin, Voetius

Church - Turretin, Cotton, Coxe, Norton, Voetius, Gillespie, Rutherford, Willard, a Brakel, Henry Jessey, Keach, Owen, Ames, Increase Mather

— Fundamentals and communion with other churches therein: Louis le Blanc, Rutherford, Voetius, Richard Hooker, Baxter, Henry Jessey, Robert McWard

— Laying on of hands: Rutherford, Gillespie, Turretin

— Form of a particular church: Henry Jessey, Cotton, Rutherford, Voetius

— Congregationalism: Cotton, Increase Mather, Norton, Ames, Owen

Sacramentology - Turretin, Rutherford, Gillespie, Voetius, Henry Jessey, John Tombes

— Efficacy: Turretin, Rutherford, Gillespie, Perkins, Synopsis of Purer Theology, Witsius

— That the efficacy is moral, not physical: see above, also Scotus, Bonaventure, Biel, Occam, Davenant

— Contra transubstantiation: Voetius, Burgersdijk, Senguerdius, Dietrich of Freiberg, Alsted

— Contra consubstantiation: Voetius, Keckermann

— Form/matter, able to switch in cases of necessity?, requirements for validity: Rutherford, Voetius, Maccovius, Trelcatius, Beza

— Who is authorized to baptize?: Wider (preferred): Henry Jessey*, Kiffin | Stricter: Turretin, Beza

*His argument from John the Baptist I do not think holds since I think John's baptism of the OT.

— Use of table: Gillespie, Rutherford, a Brakel, Calderwood

— Double consecration?: Willard

— Frequency of supper: Owen

— "Private baptisms": David Lindsay, Thomas Hutton

— Credobaptism: John Tombes, Keach, Henry Jessey

Last Judgement/Eschatology - Turretin, Voetius, Witsius

— Final justification: Goodwin, Witsius, Turretin

— Hell: Voetius, Chamier, Turretin

— Can God hypothetically, in His absolute power, torture an innocent man in Hell?: Twisse, Thomas, Scotus

— Heaven: Rivet, Voetius, Turretin, Thomas

— New Earth: Thomas

— Heavenly rewards: Turretin, Davenant

— Beatific vision, by essence?: Synopsis of Purer Theology, Thomas, Watson | Best defense of alternative view: Voetius*

*Though I ultimately differ with him in his conclusion, I do think he rightly picks out some bad arguments in favor of vision by essence.

— Beatific vision, formal act of happiness: Voetius, Scotus