The New Atheism
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 54, No. 1 – Fall 2011
Managing Editor: Malcolm B. Yarnell III
By Adriaan C. Neele. Leiden: Brill, 2009. 320 pages. Hardcover, $138.00.
In a letter to his ministerial student and friend, Joseph Bellamy, Jonathan Edwards recommends him to the work(s) of Petrus van Mastricht, saying, “take Mastricht for divinity in general, doctrine, practice, and controversy; or as an universal system of divinity; and it is much better than [Francis] Turretin, or any other book in the world, excepting the Bible, in my opinion” (11). Cotton Mather, another formidable New England theologian, likewise directs his ministerial candidates, saying, “I hope you will next unto the Sacred Scripture make Mastricht the storehouse to which you may resort continually, for in it the minister will find everything” (10). Lamentably, despite Mastricht’s formative influence(s) on early New England theological developments, few contemporary theologians even know his name.
Adriaan C. Neele’s, Petrus van Mastricht (1630–1706), Reformed Orthodoxy: Method and Piety, is the first ever monograph, exclusively devoted to the life and work of the German-Dutch theologian, Peter van Mastricht. A highly significant contribution to the field of post-Reformation studies, Neele’s work sets out “to demonstrate the relationship between exegesis, doctrine, elenctic, and praxis in the doctrine of God of Mastricht’s Theoretico-Practica Theologia” (vii). In demonstrating this relationship, Neele topples certain lopsided caricatures of Protestant Scholastic theologians as erudite, theologically myopic, and philosophically heavy-handed individuals by presenting Mastricht as an example of one concerned as much for the theory as for the practice of theology.
Following an illuminating introduction to the state of research in post-Reformation studies, Neele’s work proceeds in four main parts to a conclusion: (Part I) “The life and work of Petrus van Mastricht in the context of his time,” (Part II) “The premises of the Theoretico-Practica Theologia,” (Part III) “A cross-section the study of the doctrine of God,” and (Part IV) “An in-depth study of the doctrine of God” (v–vi).
In Part I (chs. 1–2), Neele provides the reader with extensive biography of Mastricht. He establishes Mastricht as a Reformed pastor, professor of Old Testament and Hebrew, church historian, systematic theologian, philologist, and antiCartesian philosopher. A consideration of Mastricht’s life and work, Neele argues, is critical to a proper understanding of post-Reformation theological sensibilities. He says, Mastricht’s “[consolidation] and codification of post-Reformation Reformed theology: exegesis, doctrine, elenctic, and praxis” into his Theoretico-Practica Theologia, provides the clearest indication of post-Reformation sensibilities of the relationship between theology and piety (281).
In Part II (chs. 3–4), Neele examines two premises to Mastricht’s TheoreticoPractica Theologia: (1) theological prolegomena and (2) faith. With respect to the former, Neele lays out Mastricht’s argument for the necessity of an “orderly” theological method (85–86). Beginning with Scripture, the so-called norma normans (the supreme authority) of the theological task, Mastricht argues for a number of subordinate norms (norma normata) that fulfill his methodological criterion. Ordered by their authoritative weight, these norms include: the first seven ecumenical creeds, Patristic fathers, Medieval doctors, and sixteenth century Reformers, as well as logic and a chastened philosophical (i.e. metaphysical) speculation (84). Neele describes how Mastricht’s theological method issues in a number of constructive (and quite compelling) doctrinal innovations, for example, his mediating account of the divine decrees (7–9). With respect to the second premise, Neele underscores the exceptional nature of faith to Mastricht’s doctrinal scheme. “[Resembling] more the earlier Reformed theology than [that] of his own time” (280), Neele shows Mastricht’s careful treatment of the doctrine faith as the essential link between theology as a science of the intellect, and theology as the practical “art of living to God” (93–95). The great value of Part II can hardly be overstated as a key to much of the remainder of Neele’s work.
Part III (chs. 5–8) consists of a highly instructive and detailed assessment of Mastricht’s theological method in four parts: exegesis, doctrine, elenctic (i.e., polemic), and praxis. In chapter 5, Neele demonstrates Mastricht’s historical-grammatical exegesis, emphasis on the original biblical languages, and use of comparative philology for the development of doctrine in chapter 6. Chapter 7 exhibits his use of a scholastic quaestio method of questions and answers whereby Mastricht defends his doctrinal formulations against foreseeable objections and counter-arguments (especially against Roman Catholicism, Socinianism, and Cartesianism). Chapter 8 reveals the force of Mastricht’s methodological effort, namely, the development a distinct theological structure that serves the Christian practice of piety, consisting chiefly in the exercise of faith, which he defines as love to God (201–02). Despite the rigor and great detail of these chapters, Neele’s primary interest is an exposition of the mechanics of Mastricht’s four-fold method, not a detailed exposition of the content of his doctrine.
In Part IV (chs. 9–11), Neele lays out Mastricht’s doctrine of God in even greater detail, setting the context for it in chapter 9 by assessing its expression in such Reformed Orthodox figures as William Ames, Johannes Cocceius, Wilhelmus a Brakel, and Herman Witsius. Chapters 10 and 11 serve as a sort of methodological road test, whereby Neele shows the implications of Mastricht’s four-fold theological structure, first for his account of “divine spirituality and simplicity” (221), and then “the Holy Trinity” (245).
Neele’s work concludes with a number of observations about Mastricht’s uniqueness within his own tradition, and his overall contribution to the development of post-Reformation Protestant scholastic theology. Broaching the disciplines of historical, biblical, systematic, and philosophical theology, Neele’s work is a formidable contribution to this ever-growing body of secondary literature.
Of the many virtues of Neele’s work, it is marked most by its clarity and precision. However, its chief virtue may for some also prove to be its chief vice, as such technical rigor may deters a wide readership, even amongst some professional theologians. Indeed, this is a work primarily for the trained technician—one familiar with Latin, Greek and Hebrew (as well as some Dutch and German)—and has at least some advanced knowledge of systematic theology and seventeenth-century European philosophical developments. Though Neele’s work is a steep steady climb, its contents and lucidity will surely not disappoint the patient and pensive reader.
