.
Subsections
How Long God took in Creating
Of Angels
Evolution
Bible Chronology
Geocentrism & Heliocentrism
Contra Flat Earth
Reformed vs. Aquinas
.
.
Order of Contents
Articles 30+
Historical 1
Latin 5+
Could have not Created 1
Creator 5
None can Create but God 1
Act of the Godhead 1
Creation from Nothing 2
God did Not Change by Creating 2
Devotional 1
Purpose of Creation 3
Communicable Attributes & Participation 16+
Union to God by Creation 2
How Creation Groans 1
Conservation 6+
Create a Better World?
Infinite Universe? 1
Multiple Worlds? 1
Men before Adam? 1
.
.
Articles
See also ‘Commentaries on the Apostles’ Creed’ on ‘Maker of heaven and earth’.
.
Anthology of the Post-Reformation
Heppe, Heinrich – ch. 9, ‘Creation’ in Reformed Dogmatics ed. Ernst Bizer, tr. G.T. Thomson (1861; Wipf & Stock, 2007), pp. 190-201
Heppe (1820–1879) was a German reformed theologian.
.
1500’s
Bullinger, Henry – 4th Sermon, ‘That God is the Creator of All Things & Governs All Things by his Providence; where mention is also made of the goodwill of God to usward, and of predestination’ in The Decades ed. Thomas Harding (1549; Cambridge: Parker Society, 1850), vol. 3, 4th Decade, pp. 173-94
Melanchthon, Philip – 3. ‘Of the Article that God Created All Other Things’ in Melanchthon on Christian Doctrine, Loci Communes, 1555 tr. Clyde L. Manschreck (1555; NY: Oxford Univ. Press, 1965), pp. 39-45
Vermigli, Peter Martyr – The Common Places… (d. 1562; London: Henrie Denham et al., 1583)
pt. 1, 13. ‘Of the Creation of All Things’110
‘Of the Creation of Angels, their Sundry Names, Visions, Assuming of Bodies, Office, Dignity, Order & Degrees’ 111
‘Of Man’ 121
‘Of the Soul’ 121
‘Wherein Consists the Image of God’ 123
‘Of Paradise’ 125
‘The Long Life of the Fathers’ 126
‘Of Giants’ 128
Appended: Propositions
‘A Disputation of the Article of Creation’ 144
Musculus, Wolfgang – Common Places of the Christian Religion (1560; London, 1563)
‘Creation’ 9.b
‘Creation of Angels’ 10.b
‘Creation of Man’ 11.b
Beza, Theodore – Ch. 2, 2. How the Father is Creator & Preserver of All Things in A Brief & Pithy Sum of the Christian Faith made in Form of a Confession (London, 1565)
Viret, Pierre – A Christian Instruction… (d. 1571; London: Veale, 1573)
The Summary of the Christian Doctrine, set forth in Form of Dialogue & of Catechism
Of the Creation of the World & of the Providence of God
A Familiar Exposition of the Principal Points of the Catechism, and of the Christian Doctrine, made in Form of Dialogue
6th Dialogue: Of the Creation & of the Providence & Predestination of God, & of the Vocation of Man
Of the Work of the Creation
Of Other Works of God that are Conjoined to the Work of the Creation
The Sum of the Principal Points of the Christian Faith
9. Of Man, & of the Creation & Fall of Him by Sin 10-11
Zanchi, Girolamo – Confession of the Christian Religion… (1586; Cambridge, 1599), pp. 21-26 & 277-78
ch. 5, ’Of the Creation of the World, of Angels & of Man’s First Estate’
. On Aphorism 2
Beza, Theodore, Anthony Faius & Students – 12. ‘Of the Creation of All Things & their Division’ in Propositions & Principles of Divinity Propounded & Disputed in the University of Geneva by Certain Students of Divinity there, under Mr. Theodore Beza & Mr. Anthony Faius… (Edinburgh: Waldegrave, 1591), pp. 23-26
Ursinus, Zachary
The Sum of Christian Religion: Delivered… in his Lectures upon the Catechism… tr. Henrie Parrie (d. 1583; Oxford, 1587)
1. Whether the World were Created of God
2. How God made the World
3. For what cause God created the World
Rules & Axions of Certain Chief Points of Christianity in A Collection of Certain Learned Discourses… (Oxford, 1600)
5. Of the Creation of the World
6. Of the Same
Perkins, William
‘The Creation’ in An Exposition of the Symbol, or Apostles’ Creed… (Cambridge, 1595), p. 52 & 58
Perkins (d. 1602) was an influential, puritan, Anglican clergyman and Cambridge theologian.
7. Of Predestination & Creation in A Golden Chain (Cambridge: Legat, 1600)
.
1600’s
Bucanus, William – 5. ‘Of the World’s Creation’ in Institutions of Christian Religion... (London: Snowdon, 1606), pp. 48-63
What is the signification of this word, ‘to create,’ in the Scriptures?
What is creation?
Prove it by some testimonies
Why is the creation ascribed in the Apostles’ Creed to the Father alone?
What was the moving or impellent cause of the creation of all things?
And when did God begin to create?
But whereof and whence were all things made and produced?
How prove you that?
Can the creation of the world be proved certainly by human reasons?
Now what was created?
How was the creation of the world brought to pass?
What kind of matter was that which God brought forth of nothing in the beginning?
But what was the information or framing of the world?
By what means did God give that matter a form?
Into how many parts is the earth divided?
What is the use and what is the nature of the earth?
What was the adorning of the world?
What are the plants?
To what end were the sun, moon and the stars in heaven created?
Whether can things to come be foreknown and foretold by the stars?
Is it a sound opinion to think that the stars have souls or that they be living creatures?
Why did God place the creation of the stars between the creation of plants and beasts?
What are living creatures?
Whence were living creatures brought forth?
How manifold is the procreation of living creatures?
What is the end and use of fishes and birds?
And what is the use of those living creatures which live upon the earth?
For what cause were those beasts that live upon the earth created the sixth day?
Seeing that it is written, ‘God saw all that He had made and they were exceeding good,’ how comes it to pass that there be hurtful things, as scorpions, venomous serpents, death, sickness and such like?
What is the difference between the producing of the soul of brute beasts and of man?
Have brute beasts the faculty of understanding and reason?
Why is God said to rest the seventh day from all his works?
But whence come those things which have their beginning of putrefaction or which be altogether unprofitable, or are only hurtful, as flies, wasps and such like?
What things are we principally to observe in general in the creation of all things?
Lay open these distinctly
And what is the end of the creation of all things?
But why did not God create the world sooner?
But what did He before He made the world?
What things make against the doctrine of creation?
Is this opinion to be admitted?
Which are the errors of the philosophers?
Alsted, Johann H. – 6. ‘Creation’ in Polemical Theology, exhibiting the Principal Eternal Things of Religion in Navigating Controversies, pt. 2, 4-6 (Partial) tr. by AI by Onku (Hanau, 1620; 1627), pt. 2, 2. A Major catholic Symphony: Theological Common Places, pp. 23-24 Latin
Ames, William – ch. 8, ‘Creation’ in The Marrow of Theology tr. John D. Eusden (1623; Baker, 1997), bk. 1, pp. 100-107
Ames (1576-1633) was an English, puritan, congregationalist, minister, philosopher and controversialist. He spent much time in the Netherlands, and is noted for his involvement in the controversy between the reformed and the Arminians. Voet highly commended Ames’s Marrow for learning theology.
Polyander, Johannes – 10. ‘Concerning the Creation of the World’ in Synopsis of a Purer Theology: Latin Text & English Translation Buy (1625; Brill, 2016), vol. 1, pp. 246-60
Wolleb, Johannes – 5. ‘Creation’ in Abridgment of Christian Divinity (1626) in ed. John Beardslee, Reformed Dogmatics: J. Wollebius, G. Voetius & F. Turretin (Oxford Univ. Press, 1965), bk. 1, pp. 54-58
Wolleb (1589–1629) was a Swiss reformed theologian. He was a student of Amandus Polanus.
Wendelin, Marcus Friedrich – Christian Theology 3rd ed. (1634)
Outline
Doctrine of Creation
Doctrine of the Creation of Angels
Doctrine of the Creation of Men
Wendelin (1584-1652)
Maccovius, John – ch. 6, ‘On Creation’ in Scholastic Discourse: Johannes Maccovius (1588-1644) on Theological & Philosophical Distinctions & Rules (1644; Apeldoorn: Instituut voor Reformatieonderzoek, 2009), pp. 143-55
Maccovius (1588–1644) was a reformed, supralapsarian Polish theologian.
Voetius, Gisbert – Select Theological Disputations, vol. 1, pt. 2 tr. by AI by Onku (Utrecht: Johannes a Waesberg, 1648) Latin
On Creation, pt. 1 99
. pt. 2 115
. On the World 122
. pt. 3 137
. pt. 4 153
. Work of the 2nd Day 159
. Work of the 3rd Day 165
. pt. 5 168
. pt. 6 182
. Little Appendix on Inundations 187
. Little Appendix 2, On Islands 189
. Work of the 4th Day 214
. pt. 7 223
. Brief Appendix on the Harmony of the Upper & Lower World 235
. Work of the Fifth Day 239
. pt. 8 247
. Work of the Sixth Day 247
. On Man 258
. pt. 9 270
. pt. 10 288
. Addenda on Creation 313
. Appendix to Disputations on Creation, pt. 1 319
. pt. 2 335
. pt. 3 353
. Consectary 367
. Appendix to Corollaries 368-69
Leigh, Edward – A System or Body of Divinity… (London, A.M., 1654), bk. 3
3. Of the Creation of the Heavens, the Angels, the Elements, Light, Day & Night 233
4. Of Some of the Meteors, but especially of the Clouds, Rain & Sea, the Rivers, Grass, Herbs & Trees 243
5. Of the Sun, Moon & Stars 258
6. Of the Fishes, Fowls, Beasts 261
Rijssen, Leonard – ch. 7, ‘Creation’ in A Complete Summary of Elenctic Theology & of as Much Didactic Theology as is Necessary tr. J. Wesley White MTh thesis (Bern, 1676; GPTS, 2009), pp. 66-77
Rijssen (1636?-1700?) was a prominent Dutch reformed minister and theologian, active in theological controversies.
Turretin, Francis – Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1992), vol. 1, 5th Topic
1. ‘What is creation?’ 431
2. ‘Is the ability to create communicable to any creature either principally or instrumentally? We deny.’ 433
3. ‘Was the world from eternity, or at least could it have been? We deny.’ 436
4. ‘In what season of the year was the world created? In the spring, or in the autumn?’ 441
5. ‘Was the world created in a moment, or in six days? And, were the particular works of each of the six days created without motion and succession of time, or did God employ a whole day in the production of each thing?’ 444
6. ‘In what order were the works of creation produced by God in the six days?’ 446
7. ‘From the use of the luminaries posited by Moses can judiciary astrology be built up? We deny against the astrologers and planetarians.’ 452
8. ‘Was Adam the first of mortals, or did men exist before him? And is the epoch of the created world and of men’s deeds to be referred much farther back than Adam? The former we affirm; the latter we deny, against the Preadamites.’ 457
van Mastricht, Peter – Theoretical Practical Theology (2nd ed. 1698; RHB), vol. 3, pt. 1, bk. 3
ch. 5, ‘Creation in General’ 101
ch. 6, ‘The World & the Work of the Six Days’ 123-74
Heidegger, Johann H. – 6. ‘On the Creation of the World’ in The Concise Marrow of Theology tr. Casey Carmichael in Classic Reformed Theology, vol. 4 (1697; RHB, 2019), pp. 41-49
.
1700’s
à Brakel, Wilhelmus – ch. 8, ‘The Creation of the World’ in The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vols. 1 ed. Joel Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout Buy (1700; RHB, 1992/1999), pp. 265-85
a Brakel (1635-1711) was a contemporary of Voet and Witsius and a major representative of the Dutch Further Reformation.
De Moor, Bernardinus – ch. 8, ‘On Creation’ in Didactico-Elenctic Theology
Outline
1. From the Internal to the External Works of God
2-3. Term, “Creation”, pt. 1, 2
4. Truth of Creation
5. Definition of Creation
Venema, Herman – 19. Creation in Translation of Hermann Venema’s inedited Institutes of Theology tr. Alexander W. Brown (d. 1787; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1850), pp. 335-50
ToC: Defined, Essential Cause: God, Proved by Scripture & Reason, its Economical Cause: Trinity, its Effect, Manner: Interior & Exterior, Mosaic Account, Ends of in Reference to God, Primary & Secondary, Ends in Reference to Creatures
Venema (1697-1787) was a professor at Franeker. Venema “maintained the fundamental line of confessional orthodoxy without drawing heavily on any of the newer philosophies… and maintained a fairly centrist Reformed position. Venema… evidence[s] the inroads of a rationalistic model…” – Richard Muller
.
1800’s
Alexander, Archibald – 11. ‘Creation’ in God, Creation & Human Rebellion: Lecture Notes of Archibald Alexander from the Hand of Charles Hodge (1818; RBO, 2023), pp. 132-41
Bavinck, Herman – ‘Creation’ from Our Reasonable Faith, excerpts from p. 170-73
Vos, Geerhardus – ch. 6, ‘Creation’ in Reformed Dogmatics tr: Richard Gaffin 1 vol. ed. Buy (1896; Lexham Press, 2020), vol. 1, pp. 166-93
.
1900’s
Berkhof, Louis – ‘On Creation’ HTML 70 paragraphs in Systematic Theology (1949)
.
.
Historical
On the Post-Reformation
Article
Muller, Richard – ‘creatio’ in Dictionary of Latin & Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology 1st ed. (Baker, 1985)
.
.
Latin
1600’s
Alsted, Henry – ch. 8, ‘Creation’ in Distinctions through Universal Theology, taken out of the Canon of the Sacred Letters & Classical Theologians (Frankfurt: 1626), pp. 44-47
Wendelin, Marcus Friedrich – ch. 5, ‘Of Creation; where also is of Angels & Men’ in Christian Theology (Hanau, 1634; 2nd ed., Amsterdam, 1657), bk. 1, ‘Knowledge of God’, pp. 153-71
Voet, Gisbert
Syllabus of Theological Problems (Utrecht, 1643), pt. 1, section 1, tract 3 Abbr.
I. Of Creation & the Works of the Six Days
1. Creation in General
2. The Creature in General
3. The World
4. The Works of the 1st Day
Of Heaven
Appendix of Philosophical Questions
Of the Land
Of the Light of the First Day
Further Philosophical Questions
On Privation [in mostly Philosophical Matters]
5. The Works of the 2nd Day
6. The Works of the 3rd Day
The Land, the Dry Land Especially
Appendix: Questions of Physics & Geography:
On Water
On Floods
On Plants
On Physics
On Fossils
On Hell
On Paradise [Relating to Eden]
On Stars (Philosophical, More Theological)
On Planets (Physical & Astronomical, including the Sun & Moon)
On the Effects & Consequences of the Stars
On Motion
On Daylight & Light, & Phases or Appearances from there Arising
Of Heat
On Occult Influences
On Time
On Animals in General
On Fish & Birds
Of Land Animals
Of Man in General
Of the Body
Of the Spirit
Of the Union of the Soul to the Body
Philosophical Questions:
On the Powers or Faculties of the Soul
On the Intellect, or the Human Mind
On the Conscience
On Appetite in General
On Sensation
Of the Will
Of the Principles of Existance, or of the
. Rise of Man
Of the Generation of Man
Of the Proper Adjuncts & Effects of Man, which they are accustomed to attribute to the account of the soul, the body or the total composite
Select Theological Disputations (Utrecht: Waesberg, 1648 / 1667)
vol. 1
32. ‘Of Creation’, pp. 552-71
33. ‘Of the Same’, pt. 2, pp. 571-97
34. ‘Of the Same’, pt. 3, pp. 597-617
35. ‘Of the Same’, pt. 4, pp. 617-35
36. ‘Of the Same’, pt. 5, pp. 635-52
37. ‘Of the Same’, pt. 6, pp. 652-99
38. ‘Of the Same’, pt. 7, pp. 699-726
39. ‘Of the Same’, pt. 8, pp. 726-54
40. ‘Of the Same’, pt. 9, pp. 754-75
41. ‘Of the Same’, pt. 10, pp. 775-808
42. ‘Of the Same’, Appendix 1, pp. 808-31
43. ‘Of the Same’, App. 2, pp. 831-51
44. ‘Of the Same’, App. 3, pp. 851-69
45. ‘Of the Same’, App. 4, Containing Some Corollaries, pp. 869-82
vol. 4
50. ‘A Syllabus of Questions on the Whole Decalogue’, ‘Of the love of all creatures & specially of the angels’, p. 788
vol. 5
Some Problems on Creation, pt. 1 148
. pt. 2 155
. pt. 3 166
. pt. 4 173
. pt. 5 180
. pt. 6 187
. pt. 7 194
. pt. 8 204
. pt. 9 217
. pt. 10 229
Wettstein, Gernler & Buxtorf – 5. Creation & the State of Creation in A Syllabus of Controversies in Religion which come between the Orthodox Churches & whatever other Adversaries, for material for the regular disputations… customarily held in the theological school of the academy at Basil (Basil, 1662), pp. 16-19
.
.
God could have not Created in a certain respect
See also R. Muller on God’s decree taken in a divided or composite sense.
.
Quote
Richard Baxter
The Unreasonableness of Infidelity (London: R.W., 1655), An Advertisement Explicatory, pp. ix-x
“But let us suppose, for I shall not contradict it, that the common determination is right, that God created the world, not necessarily, but freely; not only as freedom is opposite to coaction, and to any extrinsic, imposed necessity, which are unquestionable, but also to an intrinsical necessity, so that his wisdom, and communicative nature, or glory, did not necessitate the creation of the world, but that he so willed to create it, that consideratis considerandis, he might have nilled it, and in this sense did freely create it. I say on this common ground supposed we shall proceed, though I fear such high inquiries myself.”
.
Latin Article
1600’s
Rutherford, Samuel – 8. ‘Whether God exercises providence in all things by necessity of nature or by freedom?’ in A Scholastic Disputation on Divine Providence (Edinburgh, 1649), Metaphysical Inquiries, pp. 561-63
.
.
On God as Creator
See also ‘Commentaries on the Apostles’ Creed’ on ‘Maker of heaven and earth’.
.
Articles
1500’s
Bullinger, Henry – 4th Sermon, ‘That God is the Creator of All Things & Governs All Things by his Providence; where mention is also made of the goodwill of God to usward, and of predestination’ in The Decades ed. Thomas Harding (1549; Cambridge: Parker Society, 1850), vol. 3, 4th Decade, pp. 173-94
Calvin, John – 6. ‘The Need of Scripture as a Guide & Teacher in coming to God as a Creator’ in Institutes of the Christian Religion tr. Beveridge (1559), bk. 1, p. 83 ff.
Beza, Theodore – Ch. 2, 2. How the Father is Creator & Preserver of All Things in A Brief & Pithy Sum of the Christian Faith made in Form of a Confession (London, 1565)
Viret, Pierre – A Christian Instruction… (d. 1571; London: Veale, 1573), The Exposition of the Preface of the Law
Olevian, Caspar – ‘Creator of heaven and earth’ in An Exposition of the Apostle’s Creed (London, 1581), pt. 1
Olevian (1536–1587) was a significant German reformed theologian, and has been said to be a co-author of the Heidelberg Catechism along with Zacharias Ursinus (though this has been questioned).
Ursinus, Zachary – 1st Part of the Creed, Of God the Father, Creator in The Sum of Christian Religion: Delivered… in his Lectures upon the Catechism… tr. Henrie Parrie (d. 1583; Oxford, 1587)
.
Latin Articles
Zanchi, Jerome – Of the Nature of God, or of the Divine Attributes, in 5 Books (Heidelberg, 1577), bk. 1
9. Whether that which is predicated of the creatures, all the same may even be able to be predicated of the Creator, & vice-versa?
10. Whether that which is predicated of God, & yet at the same time of the creatures, may be predicated univocally, equivocally, or truly analogically?
Zanchi (1516-1590) was an Italian, protestant Reformation clergyman and educator who influenced the development of Reformed theology during the years following John Calvin’s death.
.
.
None can Create but God
Article
1200’s
Aquina, Thomas – Summa, pt. 1, q. 45, art. 5, ‘Whether it belongs to God alone to Create? [Yes]’
.
.
That Creation was an Act, not of Merely one Divine Person, but of the Whole Godhead, & hence All Three Persons by their one Essence & Power
Article
1200’s
Aquina, Thomas – Summa, pt. 1, q. 45, art. 6, ‘Whether to Create is Proper to any [Divine] Person? [No]’
.
.
On Creation from Nothing
Quote
1900’s
Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange
Reality: A Synthesis of Thomistic Theought (n.p., 1946), ch. 5, ‘Act & Potency’, pp. 29-30
“…creation is instantaneous, unpreceded by a process of becoming…
St. Thomas excels in explaining this distinction, just now noted, between passive potency and active potency. Real passive potency is not simple possibility. Simple possibility is prerequired and suffices for creation ex nihilo. But it does not suffice as prerequisite for motion, change, mutation. Mutation presupposes a real subject, determinable, transformable, mutable, whereas creation is the production of the entire created being, without any presupposed real potency.
Now, since active potency, active power, must be greater in proportion to its passive correlative, it follows that when passive potency is reduced to zero, the active potency must be infinite. In other words, the most universal of effects, the being of all [created] things, cannot be produced except by the most universal of all causes, that is, by the Supreme Being. (Summa, pt. 1, q. 45, art. 1, 2, 5; pt. 3, q. 75, art. 8)”
.
Historical Theology
Article
Goudriaan, Aza – 2. ‘Philosophy & Creation from Nothing’ in ch. 2, ‘Creation, Mosaic Physics, Copernicanism & Divine Accommodation’ in Reformed Orthodoxy & Philosophy, 1625-1750: Gisbertus Voetius, Petrus Van Mastricht, and Anthonius Driessen Pre (Boston: Brill, 2006), pp. 86-104
.
.
That God did Not Change in Creating
See also ‘God Changes Things without being Changed’.
.
Article
2000’s
Barcellos, Richard C. – ‘Change in God Given Creation?’ in The Master’s Seminary Journal, vol. 33, no. 1 (Spring, 2022), pp. 21-47
.
Quote
2000’s
Edward Feser
Five Proofs of the Existence of God (Ignatius Press, 2017), ‘The Divine Attributes’, ‘Immutability’
“Change, as we saw in chapter 1, is the actualization of potential. We have also seen that God is pure actuality, devoid of potentiality. Now, if He has no potential that needs to be, or indeed could be, actualized, then He cannot change. He is therefore immutable or changeless.
To be sure, it might seem that He changes insofar as He creates the world. For doesn’t this involve a transition from God’s not creating it to his creating it?
But as I have just argued, God’s being Creator of the world is a Cambridge property rather than a real property, and his becoming the world’s Creator is thus a mere Cambridge change. Just as, in our example, Socrates’ becoming shorter than Plato [when Plato grew taller] involved a real change only in Plato and not in Socrates, so too does God’s becoming Creator of the world involve a real change only in the world’s status, not in God. To say that God is immutable is to say that there is no real change in Him, though there may of course be Cambridge changes.
…
It might be objected that in creating the world, God acts, and that acting always involves a change in the one acting and not merely in the thing He acts upon…
However, while it is true that the things of our experience happen to undergo changes themselves in the course of acting upon other things, it simply does not follow that absolutely anything that acts must necessarily undergo change itself as it does so. To draw such an inference would be to commit what is called a fallacy of accident. Such a fallacy would be committed, for example, if one were to conclude from the premise that every college professor who has ever lived has been under nine feet tall to the conclusion that any possible college professor must be under nine feet tall…
As Brian Davies points out in responding to this sort of objection, what is essential to acting is the bringing about of an effect in another thing, rather than undergoing change oneself as one does so. For example, what is essential to teaching is that one causes someone else to learn, and not that one does so by lecturing, specifically, or by writing books, or what have you. Similarly, what is essential to creating is simply that God causes the world to exist. There is nothing in this that requires that it be done by virtue of the Creator’s undergoing change Himself.”
.
.
Devotional
Myers, Andrew – ‘He Made the Stars Also’ a collection of photography and poetic quotes about the stars
.
.
On the Purpose of God in Creating
Articles
1500’s
Ursinus, Zachary – 3. For what cause God created the World in The Sum of Christian Religion: Delivered… in his Lectures upon the Catechism… tr. Henrie Parrie (Oxford, 1587), Of Creation
.
1600’s
Owen, John – An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews… vol. 2 ed. W.H. Goold in Works (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1862), vol. 19, Preliminary Exercitations
Exercitation 27, p. 43 (2.)
Exercitation 28, p. 90, #16
.
1700’s
Venema, Herman – pp. 347-50 in Translation of Hermann Venema’s inedited Institutes of Theology tr. Alexander W. Brown (d. 1787; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1850), ch. 19, Creation
Venema (1697-1787) was a professor at Franeker. Venema “maintained the fundamental line of confessional orthodoxy without drawing heavily on any of the newer philosophies… and maintained a fairly centrist Reformed position. Venema… evidence[s] the inroads of a rationalistic model…” – Richard Muller
.
.
On the Communicable Attributes & Participation
Order of Contents
Quotes 4
Articles 7
Historical Theology 5
.
Quotes
Order of
Beza & Faius
Zanchi
Rutherford
Turretin
.
1500’s
Theodore Beza & Anthony Faius
Propositions & Principles of Divinity Propounded & Disputed in the University of Geneva… (Edinburgh, 1591), disputation 6, ‘Concerning the Attributes of God in General’, p. 10
“5. Now these things are attributed unto the Deity, sometimes substantively, and sometimes adjectively as they speak, that we may thereby know Him to be a being that subsists indeed, and that He is such a one, not by participation and imperfectly, but of Himself, and that most perfectly.
6. Of attributes we make two kinds: the one is, of them which are so proper unto the Deity that they can be in no sort communicated unto creatures, neither have they any other respect unto creatures, save that by them the Deity is distinguished from creatures; of this kind are eternity, simpleness, unmeasurableness, omnipotency.
7. The other kind is of those, who although simply, and as far as they are in the Deity, they cannot be communicated; yet creatures may be partakers of them, not properly, but by analogy, and a kind of agreement, and that not essentially, but in regard of quality, and but in part neither: such are wisdom, goodness, and the rest of that kind.
Therefore Osiander erred grossly, who taught that the essential righteousness of God was communicated unto us, and at this day their error is intolerable, who recalling back again the blasphemy of Eutyches, hold that all the proprieties of the Deity, were powered by personal union, into the flesh, which the Son of God took upon Him.
8. For whatsoever is not the divine essence, thereunto the essential attributes of the Deity cannot be communicated.”
.
Jerome Zanchi
Of the Nature of God, II.i, thesis 3, col. 55, as quoted in Muller, PRRD (2003), 3.240
“all things can be said to exist from God by participation in the divine existence.”
.
1600’s
Samuel Rutherford
The Divine Right of Church Government… (London, 1646)
Introduction, section 6, pp. 83-4
“It is an untruth which [the Romanist] Raphael de la Torres, with other schoolmen say (tome •, in 22, question 81, article 4, the only disputation), that with the same religion by which we honor holy men, we honour God, upon this reason, because holiness in them is a parti∣cipation of the divine nature; therefore God must be the intrinsical end and formal reason for which we honor the saints.
For holiness in saints is a participation of the divine nature, but it is a temporary and a created participation; it is not the same very holiness that is in God, but [rather is] the created effect thereof: and so the love I bear to any creature, because there is somewhat of God in every creature, and the love to our neighbor, commanded in the Second Table of the Law, should be the love of God commanded in the First Table of the Law.
2. When I bow to the gray-haired and to the king; I then do an act of obedience to the Fifth Commandment: No man can say that when I bow to the king or to a holy man that I am then bowing to the God of heaven and worshipping God: No acts terminated upon saints, living or dead, are acts of worshipping God; yea, reverencing of the ordinances of God, as the delighting in, or trembling at the Word, are not properly acts of adoring God.”
.
ch. 1, Question 5
section 2, p. 151
“1st Conclusion. The relative expression of God which is in the works of God, is no formal ground of any adoration of the creatures.
1. Because adoration upon this ground, though the creatures, the host of heaven be excellent, is forbidden, Dt. 4:19.
2. [If it were the case, then] Not only images (which cannot represent God) and the sacraments, but all the creatures, even, rats, mice, flies, frogs, worms, Judas and wicked men, yea, and devils are to be worshipped, because all things having being are shadows and footsteps of God, their cause, first author and last end, Ps. 19:1; 103:22; Rom. 1:19-20; Acts 17:27-28; Prov. 16:4; Rev. 4:11; Rom. 11:36-37.
3. Because God is really, and by the diffusion of his blessed essence, present in all creatures, it follows not that we should adore them: The Formalists upon this ground, that Christ is really present in the sacrament, though the manner we know not, think that Christ should be adored in the sacrament, according to that, Verbum audimus, motum sentimus, modum nescimus. But if this be good logic, because we know not the way of the Spirit and how the bones grow in a woman with child, Eccl. 11:5, and God, where he works, is present by the immediation of essence and power, though we know not the way of his presence, we are to adore the soul of man and the bones of a young child in a woman’s belly; and though they should say that God-man Christ is in a more powerful and efficacious manner present in the sacrament than in the works of nature; yet should it follow that God is to be worshipped in the works of nature also, for magis et minus non variant speciem [greater or less does not vary the species]; for then we could not conclude any thing but this: Though there be not so real a ground of adoring lice and frogs as adoring of the sacrament, yet there is a ground, seeing God is, in the reality of his blessed essence, present in all creatures.”
.
Section 3, pp. 172
“4. It is ignorance in Burges to prove God may be adored in the elements, because they are as excellent symbols of God’s presence as the ark [in the OT]: for created excellency is no ground of adoring the elements, except it be a Godhead and uncreated excellency:
We condemn Pope Anastasius, who directs reverend bowing at the hearing of the Gospel and not of the Epistles, as if the Gospel were holier than the Epistles.”
.
Christ Dying & Drawing Sinners to Himself… (London: 1647), pt. 2
p. 268
“Position 4. Though it be true that grace is essentially in God, and in us by participation, yet is it false [contra antinomians] that grace is not properly in us, but that faith, hope, repentance, and the like, that are in us, are gifts, not graces. For grace in us may be called a gift, in that it is freely given us as a fruit of the grace and favor of election and free redemption, which indeed is the only saving fountain-grace of God…”
.
p. 359
“All creatures and created beings compared with God, the first being of Himself subsisting, and the infinite God may be denied, to be beings comparatively: And so our created self is nothing, to wit, nothing in dignity, or excellency beside God, or nothing in the kind of a being that essentially is of itself: as God is in genere entis per essentiam, yet man is a being in the kind of being by participation, in genere entis per participationem; man comared with God, is a poor, worthless, sorry, little-nothing, a weeping, melting, evanishing cipher…
So the Scripture says, ‘Man at his best state is altogether vanity.’ Ps. 39:5, ‘Behold, thou hast made my days as a handbreadth, and mine age is nothing before thee: verily every man at his best state is altogether vanity.’ Isa. 40:17, ‘All nations before Him are nothing, and less than nothing, and vanity.’ Yet a heathen may say and think and demonstrate by reason that self and man, and all the world are less in incomparison of the infinite God than nothing to all things, a drop of water to the sea, the shadow to the body, a peny-torch to the light of ten thousand millions of suns in one;”
.
Francis Turretin
Institutes 3:545-46
“Although Christ is to be adored wherever He is present, it does not follow that everything in which He is present is to be adored. Christ dwells in all believers and yet believers are not to be adored with Christ…
We are not bound to adore God with an external adoration wherever He is present; but only where He is present with rays of his glorious majesty and where He wishes to be adored. Otherwise as God is in all creatures (in stones, in trees and in animals), He would have to be adored in them. Thus we are commanded to adore God in the heavens, where He manifests Himself gloriously. The Israelites were bound to adore Him at the ark, which was teh symbol of his presence….
The essential and internal glory of God (which consists in the eminence of his perfections) differs from the accidental and external glory (which is placed in some sensible, miraculous and extraordinary effect; as was seen in the bush, the ark and other like symbols of God’s presence). Although the internal and essential glory is the foundation of external adoration, still it does not bind to the exercise of actual adoration unless it is connected with the external glory (i.e., with some miraculous and extraordinary effect which makes an impression on the senses). Otherwise, as God is everywhere with his essential glory and in all his creatures, He would have to be adored there (which is absurd).
…
The distinctions between the absolute, ultimate, intransitive, direct and formal worship (which is exhibited to Christ in the Eucharist); and the transitive, indirect, relative, and concomitant worship (given to the species of the Eucharist), cannot remove the crime of idolatry. (1) They are unknown to the Scriptures, which recognize no religious worship excepting one alone, which is absolute and direct…”
.
Articles
1200’s
Aquinas
Summa, pt. 1, Treatise on the Creation, Question 44, ‘The Procession of Creatures from God, & of the First Cause of All Things’
Article 3, ‘Whether God is the exemplar cause of beings [Yes] or whether there are other exemplar causes?’
Article 4, ‘Whether He is the final cause of things?’
Compendium of Theology, pt. 1
ch. 21, ‘Eminent Existence in God of All Perfections found in Creatures’
ch. 68, ‘The Effects Produced by God’
ch. 109, ‘The Essential Goodness of God & the Participated Goodness of Creatures’
.
1500’s
Musculus, Wolfgang – Common Places of the Christian Religion (1560; London, 1563), ‘Nature of God’
‘Whether that God do communicate his nature unto his works’ 374.a
.
1600’s
Norton, John – pp. 331-2 of ch. 15, ‘Of the State of the Blessed…’ in The Orthodox Evangelist… (1654; 1657)
Norton (1606-1663) was a New England puritan divine.
Tuckney, Anthony – Sermon 22, on 2 Pet. 1:4, pt. 1, 2, 3, 4 in Forty Sermons upon Several Occasions… (London, 1676), pp. 223-63
Dickson, David – Truth’s Victory over Error, ch. ? on Communion of saints at end, and many others in this loci against the spiritualists, enthusiasts and antinomians and becoming godded, etc.
Owen, John – pp. 244-46 of Christologia… in Works (d. 1683), vol. 1
.
1700’s
De Moor, Bernardinus – 4.19, ‘Classification of God’s Attributes: Communicable & Incommunicable’
.
Historical Theology
On the Medieval Church
Wood, Jordan Daniel – ch. 12, ‘That & How Perichoresis differs from Participation: the Case of Maximus the Confessor’ in Platonism & Christian Thought in Late Antiquity Pre (Routledge), pt. 3 ToC
.
On Aquinas & Thomism
Koterski, Joseph W. – ‘The Doctrine of Participation in Thomistic Metaphysics’, pp. 185-96
Koterski is a Jesuit. This is more detailed as to the nature of participation than the reformed treatments.
Wanless, Brandon L. – Universality & the Divine Essence: St. Thomas Aquinas on the Unity Characteristic of the Trinitarian Persons a Masters thesis (University of St. Thomas, 2015)
‘Participation’ & ‘No Participation in God’, pp. 69-71 in ch. 8, ‘Universality & Particularity’
ch. 9, ‘Communicability & Incommunicability’, pp. 72-84
.
On the Post-Reformation
Muller, Richard – pp. 224-26 of 7. ‘Communicable & Incommunicable Attributes’ in pt. 2, ch. 3.3, D of Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: the Rise & Development of Reformed Theology, ca. 1520 – ca. 1725, vol. 3, The Divine Essence & Attributes 2nd ed. (Baker Books, 2003)
.
On the 1700’s
Schweitzer, William M. – God is a Communicative Being: Divine Communicativeness & Harmony in the Theology of Jonathan Edwards (London; New York: T & T Clark, 2012)
.
.
On All Creatures’ Union to God by Creation
Quotes
1600’s
Richard Baxter
Schism Detected in both Extremes, or Two Sorts of Sinful Separation... (London: 1684), pt. 1, ch. 1, p. 1
“‘United to God’ is an ambiguous word: no creature is united to Him perfectly so as to be thereby what He is, God, in the created nature. Only Christ is united to Him hypostatically in his created nature.
All are so far united to Him in natural being as that in Him they live and move and have their being: and the Nature of man is one sort of his image: All things are united to Him as effects to their constant efficient.”
.
2000’s
Richard Muller
Dictionary of Latin & Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology 1st ed. (Baker, 1985), p. 313
essential union; i.e., a union of two different essences, such as the union of all things with God according to the divine omnipraesentia (q.v.) and omnipotentia (q.v.) and manifest in the divine concursus.
This union of God with all things can also be called the unio generalis, or general union, inasmuch as it belongs to the universal nonsaving work of God as opposed to the unio specialis or unio mystica (q.v.).”
.
.
How the Creation is Said to Groan
Quote
Samuel Rutherford
The Covenant of Life Opened… (1655), p. 17
“1. Man is to be considered as a creature [and] 2. as such a creature, to wit, endued with reason and the Image of God; in either considerations, especially in the former, all that are created are obliged to do and suffer the will of God though they never sinned. It’s not enough to say that sun, moon, trees, herbs, vines, earth, beasts, birds and fishes cannot suffer the ill of punishment which is relative to the break of a Law, for the whole creation is subject to vanity for our sins, Rom. 8:20-21.
The servant is smitten and sickened for the master’s sake, and God may take from them what He gave them, [even] their lives without sense of pain and dolor, for all beings, yea [even] defects and privations, are debtors to the glory-declarative of God, Prov. 16:4; Rom. 11:36; yea, and no-beings [things that could be, but are not,] are under this debt.”
.
.
On Conservation
Articles
1500’s
Musculus, Wolfgang – Common Places of the Christian Religion (1560; London, 1563), ‘Of the Providence of God’
‘Of Conservation’ 426.b
.
1600’s
Turretin, Francis – 4. ‘Is providence occupied only in the conservation and sustentation of things; or also in their government (through which God Himself acts and efficaciously concurs with them by a concourse not general and indifferent, but particular, specific and immediate)? We deny the former and affirm the latter, against the Jesuits, Socinians and Remonstrants.’ in Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1992), vol. 1, 6th Topic, pp. 501-5
.
2000’s
Feser, Edward – ‘Conservation & Concurrence’ in Five Proofs of the Existence of God (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2017), ch. 6, ‘God & the World’, pp. 232-38
.
Historical Theology
Muller, Richard – Dictionary of Latin & Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology 1st ed. (Baker, 1985)
‘continuata creatio’
‘continuus Dei in creaturas influxus’
‘unio essentialis’
‘conservatio’
‘providentia’
‘unio parastatike’
.
Latin Article
1600’s
Voet, Gisbert – 2. Of Providence in Specific: of Conservation in Syllabus of Theological Problems (Utrecht, 1643), pt. 1, section 1, tract 3 Abbr.
.
.
Could God have made the World & Creation better than it is?
Quote
Richard Baxter
Catholic Theology (London: White, 1675), sect. 1, ‘Of our Knowledge of God as here Attainable’, p. 2, margin note
“the Schoolmen manage it as an insuperable difficulty: Whether God could have made the world, or any thing better than it is? If you will pardon me for making that easy which they make ineffable, I answer:
Goodness is primitive (that is, God) or derivative, which only is in creatures. This last is formally good, as it is related as conformed to God’s will, the Prime Good, as its rule: To be a Deo volitum [having been willed by God], is the formal notion of created good.
And so the world is perfect, and can be no better, because it is as God wills it: and yet God can make particular creatures better to themselves, and to one another; He can make any man more wise, more holy, etc. But bonum sibi [good with respect to Him] is no further properly bonum, than it is volitum a Deo:
Therefore God can make the world far otherwise than it is; and yet then it would be no better. For still it would be but as God willed it to be: So that the matter and private goodness might alter; but the true form of goodness would be still just the same as now.”
.
.
Whether the Universe is Infinite
Latin
Voet, Gisbert – p. 749 (bot) of 49. ‘A Disputation: Some Miscellaneous Positions’ in Select Theological Disputations (Utrecht: Waesberg, 1667), vol. 4
.
.
Whether there are Multiple Worlds?
Latin
Voet, Gisbert – p. 749 (bot) of 49. ‘A Disputation: Some Miscellaneous Positions’ in Select Theological Disputations (Utrecht: Waesberg, 1667), vol. 4
.
.
Were there Men before Adam?
Article
1600’s
Turretin, Francis – 8. ‘Was Adam the first of mortals, or did men exist before him? And is the epoch of the created world and of men’s deeds to be referred much farther back than Adam? The former we affirm; the latter we deny, against the Preadamites.’ in Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1992), vol. 1, 5th Topic, pp. 457-62
.
.
.
Related Pages
Of God, the Knowledge of God & of his Attributes
Expositions of the 1st Commandment
On God’s Essential Works Inside & Outside of Himself (ad intra & ad extra)