The Fundamental Meaning Of Theology: Archetypal And Ectypal Theology In Seventeenth-Century Reformed Thought

By Willem J. Van Asselt[1]

[Willem J. Van Asselt is a senior member of the Church History department in the State Theological Faculty at the University of Utrecht.]

I. Introduction

In his Vorgeschichte des Rationalismus and in his Geschichte des Rationalismus, the nineteenth-century pietist theologian F. A.G. Tholuck (1799–1877), professor of theology at the university of Halle (Germany), defended the thesis that post- Reformation Protestant scholastic theology was one of the important causes that effected the rise of Enlightenment rationalism.[2] His idea that post-Reformation Protestant theology was an essentially rationalistic project leading up to the Enlightenment was taken up by historians and theologians of the twentieth century, who connected it with some other ideas regarding the development of Reformed theology during this period. First, it was argued by Karl Barth that post-Reformation Reformed theology tended to create an abstract doctrine of God’s sovereign power (Deus nudus) as supreme being and ruler of the universe, as opposed to a God whose love for us is revealed in Jesus Christ.[3] Following Barth, Ernst Bizer claimed that this abstract doctrine of God created a radical separation of natural knowledge of God from the saving knowledge of God and, thus, the possibility of knowing God apart from the knowledge of his grace and mercy.[4] This separation resulted in an independent theology of the first article: God as Creator.[5] According to Paul Althaus the duplex cognitio or twofold knowledge of God as Creator and Redeemer was reflected in the development of a positive locus of natural theology independent of Scripture and soteriology.[6] Like Barth, both Althaus and Bizer declared that the gradual development of natural theology and the positive use of reason in post-Reformation Reformed theology represented a turn towards Enlightenment rationalism. Finally, Otto Weber summarized this Barthian approach to seventeenth-century Reformed theology by asserting that many of the Reformed scholastics came to view special revelation as no more than a completion of our natural knowledge of God. The Reformed scholastics assumed that Christian knowledge fits very well into the model of rational knowledge.[7] Consequently, the Reformed tradition could define the eternal decrees of predestination and providence of God “only on the basis of speculation about the absolute power of God, who is the first cause of all things, without even mentioning what God has done and promises to do in Jesus Christ.”[8]

Although the Reformed scholastics did use distinctions between God as Creator and God as Redeemer, and between non-saving natural knowledge and saving revealed knowledge of God, the issue is not quite as simple as the bifurcations used by Barth, Althaus, Bizer and Weber would indicate.[9] At the basis of these distinctions lies a more fundamental paradigm. The Reformed orthodox theologians posited these distinctions within a much broader epistemological context in their discussion of their theological prolegomena. This broader context was discussed in terms of the categories of theologia vera and, subordinate to that, theologia archetypa and theologia ectypa.

In what follows I will address the epistemological discussion and foundation for Reformed theology as developed in the so called theological prolegomena of the Reformed systems. The main thesis of this article is that modern criticism of Reformed theology is not aware of the Protestant scholastic discussions of archetype and ectype and their relation to the doctrine of trinity and christology.[10] By mispresenting this fundamental christological and, thus, the trinitarian structure of Reformed theology one unfortunately perpetuates the myth that identifies scholasticism with rationalism.

II. The Rise of Reformed Prolegomena

Although early Reformed theologians did not provide explicitly a rationale for the systematic organisation of Reformation doctrine, this organisation became necessary in the later institutional and academic setting.[11] It was only when Reformed academies and universities were established that formal discussion of the status and task of theology and its connection with other disciplines, especially philosophy, became urgent.

In their prolegomena the Reformed thinkers explicitly set out the premises, presuppositions, or principles of their system of thought and provided an interpretative paradigm. One of the fundamental issues in the prolegomena of the Reformed orthodox systems was the meaning and usage of the term “theology,” its parts and divisions, genus, subject and object. Franciscus Junius (1545–1602), who spent the last ten years of his life at Leiden as professor primarius of theology, was a man whose teaching on this topic is of considerable interest.[12] In his De theologia vera (1594)[13] Junius provided argumentative prolegomena in which he elaborated the influential and basic twofold division between theologia archetypa, God’s knowledge of himself and his works, and theologia ectypa, creaturely knowledge of God and his works. Junius’s De theologia vera seems to be the first Protestant work to employ this division and to make a threefold distinction in the theologia ectypa.[14]

III. Origins of the Distinction between Archetypal and Ectypal Theology

Because the topic de theologia was not treated methodologically by Luther, Calvin, or their contemporaries, later generations of Protestant theologians fell back upon the theological prolegomena written by the great scholastics.[15] According to Junius the concept of archetypal and ectypal theology can be traced back to the medieval scholastic distinction between divine self-knowledge and human knowledge of God. Junius’s use of this distinction is a good example of the critical reception of the Christian tradition by Reformed theology. He refers to the orthodox Fathers who used the term archetypos to indicate a theologia exemplaris of divine and immutable character, and the term ectypa to point to theology that God accommodated to human understanding. More recent theologians (recentiores) call the first theology secundum se, the latter theology secundum quid. Archetypal theology, however, is theology in its proper sense being the same as the infinite wisdom of God concerning himself and his works as they are necessary to him and ordered by him in a perpetual relationship according to his infinite reason; but ectypal theology is the wisdom creatures in their way have concerning God, and about the things that are ordered towards God, communicated by him. These two sorts of theology are so disparate that it is impossible to subsume them under one common chapter or sort of truth.[16]

According to Junius’s contemporary, Amandus Polanus (1561–1610), who was a professor of theology in Basel,[17] the distinction can be traced back to Scotus’s commentary on the Sententiae in which he introduced the concepts of theologia in se and theologia nostra. In order to construct a Reformed discipline of theology Polanus refers to this medieval author for definition. Junius’s discussion of archetypal and ectypal theology also reminds us of Scotus’s definition of theology.[18]

The importance and impact of this Scotistic division on post-Reformation Reformed theology in all its variety should not be underestimated. The discussion of this topic can be found in almost all the important dogmatic systems. In the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century the distinction between archetypal and ectypal theology was treated at great length by Johannes Polyander in the Synopsis purioris theologiae (1625), the best-liked compendium in this period.[19] In 1630 Johannes Alsted, professor of philosophy and theology at Herborn (Germany) and later in Weissenburg (Transylvania), published his Encyclopaedia septem tomis distincta, the first modern encyclopedia in which he summarized the sciences of the day, particularly theology. Alsted also used the distinctions Junius made concerning theology.[20] They can also be traced in the thinking of Lutheran dogmaticians. Johannes Gerhard (1582–1637), who is generally considered to be the most prominent Lutheran theologian after Luther, followed the very order of Junius’s discussion.[21] In fact, there is little difference between Lutheran and Reformed theology on these points, except on the matter of the theologia unionis, which will be discussed below.

During the second half of the seventeenth century Junius’s classification became normative for many Reformed theologians in their approach to the issue of theology as a discipline. It is found not only in high orthodox systems of Melchior Leydecker, Petrus van Mastricht, and Franciscus Turrettinus, but also in the prolegomena of federal systems like that of Johannes Cocceius, Franciscus Burman, Johann Heinrich Heidegger, Abraham Heidanus and Johannes Braun.[22] Its use was not confined to continental Reformed theology, it can also be found in circles of English puritanism.[23]

In this respect it is important to note that a great variety of theologians followed Junius’s De vera theologia on the division and classification of theology. This should warn us against any facile juxtaposition of federal-biblical theology with scholastic-dogmatic theology, such as those found in many of the discussions of federal theology.[24]

Furthermore, the division was still prominent in the prolegomena during the era of late orthodoxy in the eighteenth century. To give an example: Johannes à Marck and Bernadinus de Moor very carefully worked out Junius’s views on this matter.[25] Finally, some nineteenth- and twentieth-century authors, such as A. Kuyper, H. Bavinck, L. Berkhof, and W. Pannenberg commented on Junius’s innovation.[26]

The distinction also stands in continuity with earlier Protestant thought. According to Muller traces of it can be found in Luther’s distinction between theologia gloriae and theologia crucis, and in Calvin’s distinction between the eternal word of God and the revealed word of God.[27]

In the following sections we turn to Junius’s discussion of these divisions. As will become clear, the importance of this distiction is that it serves to clarify the idea that the Reformed conception of Christian theology is fundamentally a relational enterprise, determined by and determinative of the divine-human relationship.

IV. The Existence of True Theology

As we have seen, the presentation of theology according to its origin, nature, forms, and parts occupies a central position in the early orthodox prolegomena. In his presentation of the subject matter Junius follows the standard scholastic pattern of argumentation as given in the questions, An sit? Quid sit? and, Qualis sit? The first question is answered in the affirmative: there exists something like theology. According to Junius, the existence of theology can be proved formally from the discussion of the etymology of the word “theology,” but also from natural light (naturae lux), the consensus of all people (consensus omnium populorum) and the subject matter of theology itself (res ipsa).[28] If God is the principle of all good in the nature of things, than the conclusion can be drawn that in some way all mankind has a knowledge of God and therefore knows the possibility and existence of theology.

The affirmation of the existence of theology gives reason to pose the second question concerning the nature of theology. But before answering this question Junius wants the reader to know that a distinction should be made between false and true theology for the sake of clarity:

Although the existence of theology is generally accepted, the term theology is employed homonymously: for it is either true or false and mere opinion. The equivocation we here conclude is effected by the truth of the subject matter compared with the falseness and corruption of our judgment and senses. For the truth of the subject matter qualifies [theology] as wisdom concerning divine things; it determines what its quality is and to whom it belongs and, therefore is called true: However, the depravation of our judgment and the phlegm ( pituita) of the senses that takes away the taste for spiritual things from our minds, in this case as well as in any other instances, is the very serious cause for embracing something false as true.[29]

Although Junius declares that a full discussion of false theology is a waste of time and not useful for Christian theology, he gives a short definition and classification of it. False theology is duplex: it can be vulgaris or philosophica. The vulgar form of false theology is a theology that subsides in the imperfect principles of our nature. The philosophical formof false theology entails false conclusions by erroneous arguments and is the root of the three branches of mythical, physical and political theology. This division is essentially an assimilation of the distinction made by the Stoic philosopher Varro (116-27 B.C.) and is generally followed by most Reformed scholastics. According to Junius, Augustine has transmitted this threefold division to the Christian tradition.[30] Junius bypasses this paradigm because he wants to concentrate on the exposition of the truth of salvational theology. Since Junius’s object is limited at this point, i.e. true theology, pagan natural theology does not play a role in his treatise on true theology. This is also true for later Reformed orthodoxy.

V. True Theology as Sapientia

No one denies that true theology exists, so Junius proceeds immediately to the question Quid sit? What is it? Determinative of Junius’s view of theology are his answers to two other questions: first, whether our theology is a science and, second, whether this theology is theoretical (contemplative) or practical.[31] First of all, Junius asks whether theology is intelligentia, scientia, ars, prudentia or sapientia. This classification comes from an important discussion in the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle.[32] From the early thirteenth century onward the medieval doctors assimilated this paradigm and used it in their discussions of genus of theology. Because it was not specifically addressed in the theology of the Reformers, the Reformed scholastics drew upon this Aristotelian classification in order to identify their view of the genus of theology. According to the Aristotelian paradigm the academic disciplines are intellectual dispositions (habitus intellectuales) which are included within the basic habitus sciendi. Using Aristotle’s five basic ways of knowing (intelligentia, scientia, ars, prudentia, and sapientia) Junius next asks whether true theology can be correlated with any of the recognized genus of academic discipline. Theology, he says, is unlike intelligentia, since intelligentia is identified as knowledge of principles but not of conclusions: theology consists both in principles and conclusions drawn from them. Nor can theology be identified with scientia or drawing conclusions; nor is theology identical with ars which proceeds from intelligentia and scientia and which intends to terminate in some external work. Thus, theology must be viewed as sapientia, i.e., wisdom in the sense of a gathering of all theoretical and moral dispositions or capacities:

Our true theology embraces all these [intellectual dispositions] simultaneously: knowledge of principles, knowledge of conclusions and the salubrious art of our working insofar we reach out for God: only wisdom can be said to judge certainly, to organize things fittingly and to practice all these things in a beneficial way. Given this, it is impossible to attribute to theology any other genus but wisdom, which not only judges in the intellect the principles of the sciences and the conclusions drawn from them, but also embraces by its own nature (vi sua) all those things which are necessary for the perfection of the good, and which uses everything most wisely.[33]

From this discussion it appears that Junius was profoundly aware of the importance of the medieval debate over this issue. Although he did not cite the medieval theologians directly, he drew substantively upon them. Moreover, his words seem to suggest that this debate originated in Augustine’s distinction of sapientia from scientia according to which sciences dealt with temporal things and wisdom with eternal things.[34]

The second question Junius discusses in the section Quid sit theologia? is whether theology is contemplative or practical. Although he believes the issue is important, he deals with it briefly because his conclusions concerning the genus of theology entail that theology must be viewed as both theoretical and practical, consisting of things to be believed and things to be done. Theology defined as wisdom is “the surest index of principles: the greatest chief of all theoretical and practical sciences, and the wisest judge of all actions and plans without exception.”[35]

VI. The Divisions of True Theology

Having discussed the definition of theology, the possibility or existence of true theology and its demarcation from false theology (including the discussion of the genus of true theology) Junius proceeds to elaborate the question Qualis sit? As already indicated Junius was the first to use the influential and basic division of theologia archetypa and theologia ectypa.[36] The best way of clarifying the divisions is perhaps by quoting theses 5–10 that accompany the treatise on true theology:

5. [True] theology is wisdom (sapientia) concerning divine things. 

6. This [true] theology is either archetypal, i.e. the wisdom of God himself, or ectypal, i.e., wisdom informed by God. 

7. Archetypal theology is divine wisdom concerning divine things. It can only be worshipped, not investigated into. 

8. Ectypal theology or theology considered simply (simpliciter) (as they say) or relatively (secundum quid) is wisdom concerning divine things informed by God from the archetype through the communication of grace in order to glorify God. 

9. The former (theologia simpliciter dicta) is the whole wisdom concerning divine things communicable to creatures in respect of the communicator ( pro modo communicantis). 

10. The latter (theologia secundum quid) is wisdom concerning divine things communicated to creatures in respect of themselves. It is communicated by union, vision or revelation.

In his comment on thesis 7 Junius defines archetypal theology as the theology in God himself. It is the theology according to which the triune God knows himself in himself and also knows everything that is outside him by an indivisble act of knowing. It is the eternal and essential wisdom, and therefore God’s essence itself in which all things are present without being the result of discursive process in God.[37] According to Junius, Job was referring to this archetypal theology (ch. 28). Archetypal theology is, therefore, uncreated and identical with the divine being itself. It is essential and most simple, eternal, intuitive, absolute, incommunicable, infinite and most perfect. It is infinite because as principle of all things it pertains to all universal and singular things; before God nothing is hidden, but all things are open and laid bare to his eyes (Heb 4:13). It is incommunicable for it belongs to God alone ( propria Dei): it cannot be comprehended by any creature; we adore it and do not search it out.[38]

Although similar statements are found in later Reformed scholastics, this use of the term “theology” for divine knowledge was not supported unanimously. According to Muller, Lucas Trelcatius (1573–1603) and F. Turrettinus (1623–1678) developed a simpler division of theology and limited the “proper” use of the term “theology” to human knowledge of God. Junius, however, shows no hesitancy in using the term “theology” univocally for the knowledge of God himself and human knowledge of God.[39]

This uncreated and essential archetypal theology differs entirely from ectypical theology which is accidental and finite and a sort of outflow and efflux (aporroe`) of the former: “Ectypal theology or theology simpliciter or theology considered according to something else (secundum quid), is wisdom concerning divine things informed (informata) by God from the archetype through the communication of grace in order to glorify him.”[40] With this definition Junius wants to make clear the different causes of ectypal theology. Although theology is preeminently in the mind of God himself, this divine self-knowledge is the causal basis for human theology. It is a theology created by God, who is its efficient cause. As the moon receives its light from the sun, so God communicates his true light to creatures.[41] As causa efficiens God is at the same time the causa finalis because ectypal theology is meant to glorify God. The material cause or the subject matter of ectypal theology concerns the res divinae. The formal cause is indicated by the words ex archetypo illa informatam per communicationem gratiae.

These considerations raise the issue of the Protestant scholastic use of causal language. According to popular scholarly mythology, this language has to be dismissed as a symptom of excessive Aristotelianism and, in the case of the Reformed orthodox, as a betrayal of the more biblical approaches to theology of the Reformers. It is even claimed as evidence of a metaphysical and deterministic interest. But Junius introduces the causal terminology of Aristotle for no other reason than to explain the origin of ectypal theology. Thereby he formalized and nuanced the discussion, providing a context within which the arguments concerning the distinction between archetypal and ectypal theology, could be understood. It was used by Junius, not as an overarching pattern but as a heuristic device designed to ground a whole series of issues explaining his theological epistemology.[42]

This becomes clear when we note how Junius elaborates his remarks on the causes of ectypical theology by making a distinction between (1) the internal concept of ectypal theology in the mind of God and (2) the external form in which God communicates this concept to human beings. The internal concept in the mind of God is his divine will and grace; the external form is the body of knowledge that God decided to reveal to mankind. Junius compares God’s internal concept of ectypal knowledge with a source (fons), the external form with a lake (lacus) derived from the source.[43]

Furthermore, the concept of ectypal knowledge existing in the mind of God must be distinguished from archetypal theology. Junius calls the former theologia simpliciter dicta which differs from archetypal theology in that the latter is incommunicable, while the former is communicable. When communication of ectypal knowledge takes place then theologia simpliciter dicta becomes theologia secundum quid, i.e., relational theology, for it depends upon God’s accommodation of himself to a form which finite beings are capable of grasping. Junius calls it a second order theology, ectypal theology simpliciter dicta being a first order theology.

Finally, Junius stresses the fact that both sorts of ectypal theology, simpliciter dicta and secundum quid, equal the distinction between theologia in se and theologia in subiectis. The former is communicable by God, but cannot be grasped by human effort. Ectypal theology in subiectis, however, is a mediated and communicated theology. It is an act of God’s will without which he would remain unknown and unknowable. Therefore, the main interest of theologians, Junius comments, should not be focussed on the theologia ectypa in se but on the theology secundum quid or in subiectis, i.e. the relational and communicated form of ectypal theology. In other words: there is no way from man to God, but only from God to man. Junius concludes this section by emphasizing “that our theology is most of all a communicated theology through which we all draw on the revelation which God chose to give us in Jesus Christ.”[44]

VII. Three Kinds of Ectypal Theology

Having discussed the fundamental distinctions between archetypal and ectypal theology, Junius proceeds to discuss three genera of ectypal theology (in subiecto), for it can be communicated in different ways and to different subjects: by union (unione) to Christ, by vision (visione) to the beatified, and by revelation (revelatione) to the pilgrim or viator. In descending order ectypal theology can be communicated to Jesus Christ, to the spirits in heaven, and to men on earth. When ectypal theology is communicated by union then the theologia unionis in Christo comes into being. It is the theology of Christ theanthropos or the theology of the Mediator. When communicated to the blessed in heaven it becomes theologia visionis; when communicated to men on earth it is theologia revelationis. Junius’s discussion of this threefold communication of ectypal theology is worth quoting:

The first theology [of union in Christ] is the highest and most perfect ( plenissima) form of ectypal theology on which we all draw: John 1. 16. It is in Christ according to his human nature. The second [theology of vision] is perfect ( plena) through which the blessed spirits obtain a glorious vision of God in heaven and through which we shall see him as he is (I John 3.2). Finally, the theology of revelation is not perfect in it self (non plena re ipsa), but more ( potius) through the revelation of faith. It is informed by the princples of the same truth in such a way that, in respect of ourselves, it can appropriately be called perfect: although it is imperfect when compared with the theology of vision for which we hope, as the apostle teaches the Corinthians, I Corinth. 13:12. This, indeed, is our theology.[45]

What is particulary interesting in Junius’s discussion of ectypal theology is that the discussion of the subdivisions of ectypal theology in subiecto is dominated by an unmistakable christological emphasis. This christological framework of ectypal theology is expressed by Junius’s saying that the theology of union in Christ is the principle of the two other forms of ectypal theology: the theology of vision and that of revelation. Whereas archetypal theology is the matrix of all forms of theology, the theology of union is the mother (mater) of the two other forms of ectypal theology, i.e., the theology of vision and revealed theology:

The former is the source ( fons) of all: the latter is like a common reservoir (commune castellum) or holder (conceptaculum). In two ways all creatures draw on the divine plenitude of this salubrious reservoir: some by vision coram Deo, others by revelation, like pilgrims being away from the Lord, 2 Corinthians 5:6, 7. From these two modi the other two sorts (genera) of ectypal theology have proceeded: The orthodox Fathers called the first one the theology of the blessed (beatorum), the other the theology of the pilgrims (viatorum). Thus, the second formof ectypal theology we can call the theology of the blessed or an exalted (excelsa) theology; the second form, the theology of the pilgrims or a humble (humilis) theology. Both forms of theology, therefore, Christ has sanctified in his Person: when he used the humble theology in the humility of the flesh, and the exalted theology in his exaltation through which he now is exalted above every name, in such a way that the principle of both forms of theology appears to be in him.[46] 

VIII. Christological Implications

This observation leads us to another related point. In order to evaluate the emphasis on the paradigmatic significance of the theology of union a brief comment should be made on the christological debate between the Reformed and Lutheran theologians during the seventeenth century. According to Junius and all his Reformed colleagues, the theology of union did not involve the communication of archetypal theology to Christ’s human nature. At this point later Lutherans took issue with the view of Junius and Reformed theology. Whereas Johann Gerhard simply stated that the theology of union was, by virtue of the personal union, a perfect knowledge of God and divine things, the Wittenberg professor Abraham Calov (1612–1686) went a step further, asserting that,

according to his human nature, the archetypal theology was in Christ’s possession too, by virtue of the exchange of properties between the two natures of Christ (communicatio idiomatum). According to Calov, this rested on the supposition that the unity of the two natures in Christ’s person demanded a real communication or sharing of attributes.[47]

The Reformed position was set forth in four concise arguments: (1) For the divine nature it is the same to know as to be. Just as the essence (esse) of the divine nature is not communicable, the knowledge it possesses is not communicable; (2) The human nature is no more capable of divine knowledge than of divine being. The finitude of the human nature means that it cannot grasp the infinity of God; (3) The personal union of the two natures in Christmust not be construed as a confusion or co-mingling of the two natures; (4) Christ was like us in all things, also in matters of knowledge.[48] According to Reformed teaching, the properties or attributes of each of the two natures coincide in the one person of Christ and could only be predicated to him. The exchange of properties, therefore, is understood as taking place at the level of the person and not between the natures. Because the communicatio idiomatum did not take place in the abstract—between the natures—but in the concrete—at the level of the person—archetypal theology was not in Christ’s possession.

Although a detailed description of this debate exceeds the limits of our intention, one is justified to say that the results of Reformed and Lutheran christology played a significant role in shaping the form and contents of the prolegomena. Christology articulates the presuppositions and approaches to theology in both Reformed and Lutheran orthodoxy.

IX. Pilgrim Theology

The last category of ectypal theology is that of the pilgrims on earth or theologia viatorum, a theology preceding the theology of the beatified in heaven. Here Junius draws, of course, upon the traditional distinction between pilgrims and blessed, with the corresponding in via and in patria, which concept goes back at least to some of Augustine’s writings and was used extensively by medieval theologians.[49] Commenting on 1 Corinthians 13:8 and 9 Junius declares that in contrast to the perfection and permanence of the theology of union and that of vision, the theology of the viator “is mixed with weakness and imperfection, for it comprehends solely the principles of that very perfect theology in heaven: by these principles, perfect in themselves, but imperfect in a certain way, we are

elevated to heavenly perfection.”[50] The language of in via and in patria points us to a strong teleological and eschatological orientation of Reformed theology. Theology here on earth is always a theology of pilgrims and, therefore, an imperfect theology until further orders.[51]

According to Junius, nature and grace are the two basic forms of communication of revealed or pilgrim theology. Nature represents an internal or immanent ground of communication of divine knowledge, grace represents an external ground of communication. On the basis of the former a natural (revealed) theology is constructed, on the basis of the latter we build a supernatural revealed theology.[52]

It is important to note here that natural theology is seen by Junius and his Reformed colleagues as belonging to the category of revealed theology and that it is not used as a separate and independent source of knowledge. What is more, in the Reformed archetype-ectype paradigm, a clear distinction has been made between two totally different forms of natural theology which are so often confused in contemporary literature: a pagan form of natural theology and a Christian form of natural theology. The first form of natural theology belongs to the category of false theology, the latter is discussed as a form of true theology under the category of ectypal theology with its christological orientation. Therefore, the modern attacks upon the Reformed distinction between natural and supernatural theology as being an inroad to the rationalism of the (early) Enlightenment rest upon a fundamental misinterpretation of the distinction insofar as natural theology is not viewed by the modern critics as a form of revealed theology or as distinct from the false natural theology of pagans. In other words, the bifurcation in Reformed theology made by the older scholarship between an independent and positive locus of natural theology isolated from the revelation of the triune God and soteriology does not stand.

X. Concluding Remarks

From this survey it becomes clear that Junius and the later orthodox utilized the insights of patristic, medieval, and reformation theologians. Their use of the archetypal-ectypal distinction, and the crucial significance of the theology of union in its relation to the two other forms of ectypal theology is a means of developing an understanding of the principles and task of theology which is determined by a strong trinitarian and christological—and, mutatis mutandis, a pneumatological—framework.

Moreover, the previous discussions on archetypal and ectypal theology as an overarching paradigm indicate that the Reformed orthodox never used the term “Deus” (as the principium essendi of theology) in a neutral or unqualified sense in order to construe a natural theology in a rationalistic way. What is more, from the very beginning the triune God or Deus foederatus in Christo was envisaged by the Reformed orthodox in their discourse about God as the object of theology. Like Junius, F. Turrettinus extensively argued that Christian theology never deals with God “considered exclusively under the relation of deity (…), but as he is our God, i.e., covenanted in Christ as he has revealed himself to us in his word not only in order to know him but also in order to worship him.”[53] All these observations show that there is enough evidence to falsify the claim of the Barthian school that in post-Reformation Reformed theology the doctrine of the Trinity was overshadowed by a “Deus nudus” as an axiomatic governing principle of theology.

Finally, from a historical point of view, two other observations must be made. First, it can be argued that the strong and unremitting opposition of the Reformed orthodox against Socinian unitarism gives ample evidence that the trinitarian God was presupposed by all doctrines discussed in the Reformed systems: e.g., the doctrine of Scripture, the doctrine of the divine attributes, the doctrine of the divine decrees, and the doctrines of creation and providence.[54] Secondly, it was exactly the Arminian rejection of the scholastic distinction between archetypal and ectypal theology that opened the way to rationalism. Contrary to Arminius himself,[55] later Arminian theologians like Simon Episcopius and Philippus van Limborch vehemently rejected the distinction between archetypal and ectypal theology as vain subleties without solidity and utility.[56] By giving up this distinction, however, their theological systems proved more open to seventeenth century rationalism, whereas the Reformed system—due to its archetypal and ectypal paradigm—presented a vital opposition to it.

Notes

1. I would like to thank the H. Henry Meeter Center for Calvin Studies for assistance in providing the resources on which this article is based. Further thanks are due to Dr. Carl Trueman of Westminster Seminary, Philadelphia, for his careful proofreading of this article.
2. A. Tholuck, Vorgeschichte des Rationalismus (Berlin, 1861); idem, Geschichte des Rationalismus: Erste Abtheilung, Geschichte des Pietismus und des ersten Stadiums der Aufklärung (Berlin, 1865).
3. K. Barth, Die kirchliche Dogmatik II/1 (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1932; Zurich: EVZ Verlag, 1938–65), 141.We are referring to Barth’s extremely sharp criticism of Article 2 of the Confessio Gallicana and the Articles 2–3 of the Confessio Belgica.
4. E. Bizer, Frühorthodoxie und Rationalismus (Zürich: EVZ Verlag, 1963).
5. See also Barth, KD II/1, 93.
6. P. Althaus, Die Prinzipien der Deutschen reformierten Dogmatik im Zeitalter der aristotelischen Scholastik (Leipzig: Deichertsche, 1914).
7. Otto Weber, Foundations of Dogmatics (trans. Darrell L. Guder; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1981), 1:118: “The question of natural theology, already raised by biblical texts, was now set forth as a result of the interior structure of theological thought itself.”
8. S. C. Guthrie, Always Being Reformed: Faith for a Fragmented World (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 35.
9. R. A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 1:183 (henceforth PRRD).
10. See also A. Baxter, “The Term ‘Archetype’ and its Application to Jesus Christ,” Heythrop Journal 25 (1984): 19-38.
11. See Muller, PRRD, 1:53–55.
12. For his biography, see J. Reitsma, Franciscus Junius, een levensbeeld uit den eersten tijd der kerkhervorming (Groningen, 1864); A. Davaine, Francois du Jon ( Junius): Pasteur et professeur en théologie 1545–1602. Etude historique (Paris, 1882; repr., Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1970);W. Geesink, Calvinisten in Holland (Rotterdam, 1887), 1–51; B. A. Venemans, Franciscus Junius en zijn Eirenicum de pace ecclesiae catholicae (Leiden: Elve/Labor vincit, 1977); Chr. de Jonge, De irenische ecclesiologie van Franciscus Junius (1545–1602) (Ph.D. diss., University of Leiden, 1980); Biografisch Lexicon voor de geschiedenis van het Nederalandse protestantisme (Kampen: Kok, 1978), 2:275–78.
13. F. Junius, De theologia vera, ortu, natura, formis, partibus, et modo illius (Lugd. Batav., 1594). See Opera Theologica Francisci Junii Biturgis Sacrarum literarum professoris eximii. Quorum nonnulla nunc primum publicantur. Praefixa est vita autoris. Omnia cum indicibus VII accuratissimis, s. l. (Heidelbergae: in officina Sanctandreana 1608), 1:1370ff. (henceforth OT). A revised version was published after his death in 1604. Before that, during his professorship at Heidelberg (1573–1578) he already drafted 27 theses on this subject. Three years after publication of Junius’s treatise Antonius Walaeus defended 12 theses de vera theologia under the presidency of Junius: Disputationum theologicarum repetitarum prima: de vera theologia. Quam … preside … D. Francisco Junio … : Sustinere adnitur Antonius Walaeus Gandensis. Die X. Decembris Anno 1597 (Lugduni Batav., ex officina Ioannis Patij). The treatise of 1594 contains 39 theses. Comparison of these publications does not reveal any spectacular new insights on the part of Junius. In 1882 A. Kuyper published an edition of some of Junius’s works, which contains the treatise De theologia vera: Junius, D. Francisci Junii opuscula theologica selecta (ed. A. Kuyper; Bibliotheca Reformata 1; Amsterdam, 1882), 45–101.
14. Althaus, Die Prinzipien, 230–31. Althaus argues that these formulations mark the introduction of Thomistic epistemology in the Reformed system. Muller, PRRD, 1:124, however, indicates that Thomistic epistemology was already present in Reformed thought from the time of Vermigli and Zanchi. Moreover, the distinction between God’s knowledge of himself and creaturely knowledge was a commonplace in fourteenth- and fifteenth-century scholasticism. According to Muller the distinction draws on the Scotist distinction between theologia in se and theologia nostra and harks back to the even more fundamental distinction between potentia Dei absoluta and potentia Dei ordinata.
15. See Joannes Altenstaig/Joannes Tytz, Lexicon Theologicum (Cologne, 1619; repr., Hildesheim: Olms Verlag, 1974), 907–11. See also Sebastian Rehnman, Divine Discourse: The Theological Methodology of John Owen (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 57ff. According to Rehnman the concept of archetypal theology can de traced back to Aristotle’s conception of a divine science that is most honourable and alone divine (Metaphysica 1.2.14). Pseudo-Dionysius supposed a theology of God himself, a theology of created spirits, and a theology of pagans. Similar divisions can be found in the twelfth century.
16. Junius, OT, 1376 (Opuscula [ed. Kuyper], 50): “Ac mihi quidem videtur archetypos illa Theologia ab orthodoxis patribus exemplaris olim appellata; ad cuius exemplar divinum & immutabile, altera haec conformata est a Deo pro creaturarum captu; recentiores vero illam Theologiam secundum se, hanc Theologiam secundum quid appellarunt. Est autem illa Theologia, eadem ipsa infinita sapientia, quam Deus de seipso habet rebusque omnibus, ut sunt ad ipsum necessario, proprie, et per se relatione perpetua ordinatae, secundum rationem infinitam ipsius: Haec vero Theologia, illa est sapientia, quam creaturae de Deo habent pro modo ipsarum, deque rebus ad Deum ordinatis, per communicationem ipsius. Atque haec quidem genera duo Theologiae ita disperata sunt, ut ad unum aliquod certum caput & genus commune ex veritate referri non possunt.”
17. Amandus Polanus von Polansdorf, Syntagma theologiae christianae (Hanover, 1609), cols. 11–12.
18. Duns Scotus, Lectura librum primum sententiarum, in Opera Omnia (Civitas Vaticana, 1950-), vol. XVI, prol. q. III, lec. iv: “Sacra theologia, sive in se considerata, sive prout est in nobis, tum quoad veritates necessarias, tum quoad contingentes, habet pro objecto primo, & adaequato ipsum solum Deum: quatenus tamen est de contingentibus, & est in Deo, vel beatis, habet pro subjecto essentiam divinam, ut est haec.”
19. Synopsis purioris theologiae, disputationibus quinquaginta duabus comprehensa ac conscripta per Johannem Polyandrum, Andream Rivetum, Antonium Walaeum, Antonium Thysium, S.S. Theologiae doctores et professores in Academia Leidensi (ed. H. Bavinck; 6th ed.; Leiden, 1881), 1.1.3–9.
20. Polanus, Syntagma heologiae christianae, synopsis Liber I (Hannover 1609); J. H. Alsted, Praecognita, 1.4.
21. For Gerhard’s dependence on Junius, see Robert D. Preus, The Theology of Post-Reformation Lutheranism (St. Louis: Concordia, 19), 1:114.
22. M. Leydecker, De Verborgentheid des Geloofs eenmaal den heiligen overgeleverd of het Kort Begrip der ware Godsgeleerdheid (Rotterdam, 1700), 1.1.4–6; P. van Mastricht,Theoretico-practica theologia (2d ed.; Utrecht, 1699), 1.1.15; J. H. Heidegger, Corpus theologiae christianae (2 vols.; Zurich, 1700), 1.1.1; F. Turrettinus, Institutio theologiae elencticae in tres partes distributa (Geneva, 1688), 1.2.5–8; Joh. Cocceius, Aphorismi per universam theologiam breviores, §2; idem, Aphorismi per universam theolgiam prolixiores, §3 (vol. 7 of Opera omnia; Amsterdam, 1673–75); idem, Summa theologiae ex Scripturis repetita (vol. 6 of Opera omnia), cap. 1, §3; F. Burman, Synopsis theolgiae & speciatim oeconomiae foederum Dei, ab initio saeculorum usque ad consummationem eorum (2 vols.; 2d ed.; Utrecht, 1681), 1.2.36–37; A. Heidanus, Corpus theologiae christianae (Leiden, 1686), 1.1-2; Joh. Braunius, Doctrina foederum, sive systema theologiae didacticae & elencticae (2d ed.; Amsterdam, 1702), 1.1.5.
23. See C. R. Trueman, The Claims of Truth: John Owen’s Trinitarian Theology (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998), 54–64.
24. E.g., C. S. McCoy, The Covenant Theology of Johannes Cocceius (Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1956), 89, 90, 236; H. Faulenbach, Weg und Ziel der Erkenntnis Christi. Eine Untersuchung zur Theologie des Johannes Coccejus (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1973), 46–47.
25. Joh. à Marck, Compendium theologiae christianae didactico-elencticum (Amsterdam, 1722); B. de Moor, Commentarius perpetuus in Johannis Marckii compendium theologiae christianae didactico-elencticum (7 vols.; Leiden, 1761), 1.1.7–11.
26. A. Kuyper, Encyclopedie der heilige godgeleerdheid (Amsterdam, 1894), 2:196–207; H. Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek (4th ed.; Kampen: Kok, 1928), 1:184–86; 2:163; L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949) 35;W. Pannenberg, Systematische Theologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1988) 1:12–13.
27. Muller, PRRD, 1:125.
28. Junius, De vera theologia, OT, 1374 (Opuscula [ed. Kuyper], 46): “Esse autem theologiam res ipsa & consensus omnium populorum docent; res: nam Deus est, & idem principium est omnis boni in rerum natura, & loquitur, & agit ut Deus. Consensus: nam omnes ita esse agnoscunt naturae luce.”
29. Junius, De vera theologia, OT, 1375 (Opuscula [ed. Kuyper], 47): “Etsi autem ab omnibus creditur esse theologiam, in vulgo tamen homonumos dicitur. Est enime haec vera, illa falsa & opinabilis. Aequivocationem istam, quam hic statuimus, efficit rei veritas cum falso corruptoque nostro iudicio & sensu comparata. Nam ex rei veritate quidem est, ut sit sapientia rerum divinarum, qualiscunque illa tandem & cuiuscunque sit, etiamque vera dicatur esse: ex iudicii vero nostri depravatione, & quasi pituita sensum spiritualis gustus mentibus adimente est, quod in hac quoque (ut in caeteris) causa gravissima falsum pro vero amplectamur.”
30. Junius, De vera theologia, OT, 1376 (Opuscula [ed.Kuyper], 47): “Ex quo autem hic truncus quasi a radice illa vulgaris theologiae coepit procedere, statim diffusa est haec philosophica in tres ramos illos, quos suis nominibus ante distinximus, fabulosa puta, naturalem atque civilem theologiam; quemadmodum ex Varrone & Seneca Augustinus lib. 6. de civit. Dei, cap. 5 explicavit. Mythicum sive fabulosum dixerunt illi, quo maxime utuntur poetae ad theatricam voluptatem; naturale vel physicum genus theologia, quo philosophi ad mundi interpretationem & veri naturalis pervestigationem, in suis diaetis atque encycliis; politicum denique vel civile, quod potentiores adhibuerunt, ut civitatem rerumque publicarum leges quaedam religionis auctoritate stabilirent.”W. Pannenberg, Theology and the Philosophy of Science (trans. Francis McDonagh; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976), 7–8, points to Clement’s Stromata and to Aristotle.
31. It should be noted that the term “scientia” (science) as used by Junius and other seventeenth-century theologians indicated a disciplined body of knowledge resting upon evident principles. The rise of modern science was certainly evident in the seventeenth century, but the termscientia had not been restricted to the empirical and inductive disciplines. See R. A. Muller, “Scholasticism Protestant and Catholic: Francis Turretin on the Object and Principles of Theology,” in CH 55 (1986): 193-205.
32. See Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 6.1139b16–1140a8.
33. Junius, De vera theologia, OT, 1375 (Opuscula [ed. Kuyper], 49): “At haec omnia simul theologia nostra comprehendit; principiorum intellectum, conclusionum determinationumque scientiam, & operis nostri, quatenus ad Deum contendimus, artem saluberrimam: quae omnia nihil plane, praeterquam sapientia, iudicare certo potest, aut commode ordinare, aut praestare salutariter. Quae cum sint, non potest theologiae statui ullum aliud genus, quam sapientia, de principiis scientarum in intellectu, & conclusionibus earum iudicans, & omnia vi sua complectens quae ad perfectionem omnis boni sunt necessaria, & iis omnibus utens sapientissime.”
34. See, e.g., Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana 1.8.17–19.
35. Junius, De vera theologia, OT, 1375 (Opuscula [ed. Kuyper], 48): “Ac primum quidem theologiam sapientiam eo appellamus, quod omnes omnino proprietates ad intellectum, scientiam, & usum salutarem pertinentes, ex natura & supra naturam, modo plane excellentissimo in sese complectitur; velut certissima principiorum index, amplissima scientiarum omnium θεωρητικῶν και πρακτικῶν princeps, & sapientissima omnium actionum rationumque arbitra, omni exceptione maior.”
36. See Althaus, Die Prinzipien, 230; Preus, Post-Reformation Lutheranism, 1:114, 168–72, Muller, PRRD, 1:124.
37. Junius, De vera theologia, OT, 1377 (Opuscula [ed. Kuyper], 51): “Haec vero sapientia aeterna est, essentialis, adeoque essentia Dei: cui omnia non ex ullis principiis, compositione, & divisione intellectus, ratiociatione, conclusionibus, scientia, judicatione, & ordinatione sunt praesentissima: sed simplicissime, unico omnium simul intuitu, ac non successive, ut fit creatis rebus: haec principia gignit ex se, non ex eis gignitur: haec intellectum, rationem, conclusiones, scientias, sapientiam in aliis efficit, in se immutabilis & invariata permanens.”
38. “Theologia archetypa est divinarum rerum divina sapientia, hanc vero nos adoramus, ac non investigamus” (ibid.).
39. For this debate among the Reformed scholastics, see Muller, PRRD, 1:131.
40. Junius, De vera theologia, OT, 1379 (Opuscula [ed. Kuyper], 53): “Theologia ektypos sive simpliciter (ut vocant) sive secundum quid considerata, est sapientia divinarum rerum a Deo ex archetypo ipsius informata per communicationem gratiae ad gloriam ipsius.”
41. “Est enim Deus ipse solus, non autem res creata ulla, efficiens causa istius habitus, quem theologiam appellamus (…) Quemadmodum igitur sol lunae foeneratur lucem; sic Deum in quo est lux, eaque lux vera illuminans omnem hominem venientem in huncmundum, Ioan. 1. 9” (ibid., 1379 [Opuscula (ed. Kuyper), 54]).
42. The work of Paul Oskar Kristeller, Charles Schmitt and Heiko Oberman, and its subsequent application to Protestant scholasticism by Preus, Muller and Trueman, has shown that this facile equation of Scholasticism and Aristotelianism is no longer tenable. See P. O. Kristeller, Renaissance Thought: The Classic, Scholastic, and Humanist Strains (New York: Harper and Row, 1961); Charles B. Schmitt, “Towards a Reassessment of Renaissance Aristotelianism,” in Studies in Renaissance Philosophy and Science (London: Variorum, 1981); Preus, The Theology of Post-Reformation Lutheranism, 1:72; Muller, PRRD, 1: passim; PRRD 2:232–35. In this regard the work of Carl R. Trueman is particulary helpful: see his The Claims of Truth, 34–46.
43. Junius, De vera theologia, OT, 1380 (Opuscula [ed. Kuyper], 54): “Ac proinde quemadmodum actus internus & externus in rebus nostris consideratur, ita & forma duplex, interna et externa. Internam appellamus illum veluti conceptum aeternum divinae voluntatis & gratiae in ipso Deo consideratum. Externam vero, illius aeterni conceptus, ut ita dicamus, factam suo tempore in alia influentiam. Utroque modo informat Deus, intus consilio sapientissimo, foris opere potentissimo hanc sapientiam. Sed quia duplex haec forma est, in Deo, tanquam in fonte subsistens; in alia, tanquam in lacus, derivata.”
44. “Nos autem in hac quaestione non tam theologiae illius simpliciter dictae, quam theologiae secundum quid rationem habituri sumus: quia haec nostra est maxime theologia, cuius communicationem omnes haurimus de plenitudine Dei in Christo Jesu, Ioan. 1. 16” (ibid.).
45. Junius, De vera theologia, OT, 1383 (Opuscula [ed. Kuyper], 56): “Prima theologia summa omnium ac plenissima est, de qua haurimus omnes: Ioan. 1. 16. estque in Christo secundum humanitatem eius. Secunda, plena, qua spiritus beati gloriosam Dei visionem obtinent in coelis, & nos Deum sicuti est visuri sumus: I Ioan. 3. 2. Tertia denique non est plena re ipsa, sed potius per revelationem fidei, sic instructa principiis eiusdem veritatis, ut plena respectu nostri commode dici & perfecta possit: quamvis imperfecta, si cum illa coelesti quam speramus, comparetur, ut Apostolus Corinthios docuit. I Cor. 13. 12. Atque haec nostra demum est theologia.”
46. Junius, De vera theologia, OT, 1387 (ed. Kuyper, 59): “Illa archetypa matrix est omnium: haec vero ectypa in Christo est reliquarum mater: Illa fons omnium: haec commune quasi castellum seu conceptaculum. De huius autem salutaris conceptaculi divina plenitudine res creatae duobus modis hauriunt: Una visione coram: Altera revelatione, absentes videlicet ac peregrinantes a Domino. 2 Cor. 5:6, 7. Ex his duobus modis illa duo Theologiae ectypae genera processerunt: quorum alterum Theologiam beatorum, alterum viatorum orthodoxi Patres appellabant. Itaque secunda forma Theologiae ectypae, Theologia beatorum seu excelsa: tertia, viatorum, sive humilis dici a nobis potest. Atque hanc utramque formam Theologiae sanctificavit in persona sua: quandoquidem cum humili Theologia usus est in humilitate carnis: tum excelsa utitur in illa exaltatione sua, qua nunc exaltatus est supra omne nomen: videlicet ut commune principium utriusque Theologiae sibi inesse ostenderet.”
47. For a detailed discussion on Calov’s reflections on archetypal and ectypal theology, see Preus, The Theology of Post-Reformation Lutheranism, 1:167–73.
48. E.g., Junius, De vera theologia, OT, 1382 (Opuscula [ed. Kuyper], 54–55).
49. See Augustine, De civitate Dei, passim; idem, De doctrina christiana: 1.5.10; 1.11.22; 1.17.34. For late medieval theology, see Altenstaig, Lexicon, 908–9. See H. A. Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism (Durham, N.C.: Labyrinth, 1983), 62–63, 77.
50. Junius, De vera theologia, OT, 1388 (Opuscula [ed. Kuyper], 61): “Sed perfectio eius cum nostra tenuitate & imperfectione contemperata est: quia principia solum perfectissimae illius in coelo theologiae comprehendit; quibus principiis perfectis quidem in se ipsis, sed imperfectis secundum quendam modum, ad perfectionem coelestem evehimur.”
51. See, e.g., J. H. Heidegger, Corpus theologiae christianae, 1.1.67: “Theologia viae, seu tradita in Systemate, seu, ut habitus mentem occupans, quamdiu peregrinamur a Domino, imperfecta semper est, & continuo profectu de die in diem perfici debet. In omnibus enim & singulis imperfectior, quam in via cognosci poterat. Quis enim vel Prophetarum vel Apostolorum omnia mysteria, quae in verbo Dei continentur, perfecte intellexit?”
52. Junius, De vera theologia, OT, 1390 (Opuscula [ed. Kuyper], 63–64): “Est igitur duplex theologiae communicandae modus, natura & gratia: illa velut internum principium communicationis; haec, velut principium externum illius, ex quo fit ut theologia una dicatur naturalis, & supernaturalis altera (…) Naturalem quum dicimus, hoc in loco nolumus accipi ea significatione, quam ex Varrone & Augustino supra capite primo ostendimus, sed proprio sensu atque simpliciter.”
53. Turrettinus, Institutio theologiae elenchticae, 1.5.4: “Sed quando Deus proponitur ut objectum theologiae, non spectandus est simpliciter ut est Deus in se (…), sed quatenus revelatus & ut se in verbo nobis patefacere dignatus est, ut revelatio divina sit ratio formalis quae in hoc objecto spectanda venit. Nec praecise considerandus est sub ratione Deitatis (…) sed ut est Deus noster id est foederatus in Christo, quomodo se nobis in verbo patefecit, non modo ut cognoscendum sed etiam ut colendum, quibus duobus vera religio quam theologia docet, continetur.”
54. See A. J. Beck, “Gisbertus Voetius (1589–1676): Basic Features of his Doctrine of God,” in Reformation and Scholasticism. An Ecumenical Enterprise (ed.Willem J. van Asselt and Eef Dekker; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 205–26.
55. For Arminius’s use of the distinction between archetypal and ectypal theology, see R. A. Muller, God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius: Sources and Directions of Scholastic Protestantism in the Era of Early Orthodoxy (Grand Rapids: Baker 1991), 60–62.
56. See Simon Episcopius, Institutiones theologicae, in Opera Theologica (Amsterdam, 1650), 1:4: “Nec dicam operose de Theologia, quas vocant, speciebus, in quas Theologiam analogice dividere quidam solent, videlicet de Archetypo & Ectypo, sive ut barbare quidam loquuntur, Archetypa & Ectypa (…) quae vanitatis plus habent quam utilitatis, & subtilitatis plus quam soliditatis, imo quae etiam falsa sunt.” See Phippus van Limborch, Theologia christiana. Ad praxin pietatis ac promotionem pacis christianae unice directa (Amsterdam, 1686), 1.1.1: “Solet vulgo Theologia dividi in Archetypam, qua Deus se ipsum novit & omnia divina; & Ectypam, quae expressa sit ad illam ideam, & communicata tripliciter: 1. per unionem hypostaticam, Jesu Christo; 2. per visionem, Angelis; 3. per revelationem, hominibus. Sed vitiose. Theologia enim revelata non est expressa ad ideam cognitionis illius, qua Deus seipsum cognoscit naturaliter.