Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669), The

The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669). By Willem J. van Asselt, translated by Raymond A. Blacketer. Studies in the History of Christian Thought 100. Leiden, Boston, Koln: Brill, 2001, xiv + 361 pp., $95.00.

Professor van Asselt has produced an exceptional study in Reformed covenant theology by way of summarizing-and commending to the churches-the teaching of one of its most distinguished and prominent post-Reformation systematicians (and biblical theologians), Johannes Cocceius, one who was not well understood or appreciated in his own day. The reasons for this are many and varied. Van Asselt offers some perspective concerning this widespread misunderstanding. Most importantly, however, the author of this one-hundredth volume in Studies in the History of Christian Thought has performed an invaluable service in faithfully representing the covenant theology of Cocceius.

Though weak on American Reformed scholarship, this study will unquestionably stand the test of time. It serves well as a compendium on Reformed covenant theology in a critical period of Reformation/post-Reformation thought (more specifically) and on Reformed dogmatics (more generally). Virtually every aspect of Christian dogmatics is touched upon to one extent or another. In all essentials, Cocceius's theology embodies standard Reformed teaching, claiming nothing original in its breadth and depth of formulation. Comments van Asselt: "His work, of course, had its limitations-a fact of which he himself was well aware. Accordingly, two years before his death, he wrote to [Johann Heinrich] Heidegger in Zurich, `All my work is unremarkable' (Omnia mea sunt mediocra). Such was the modesty with which Cocceius was graced" (p. 33). To the credit of our present author, he has shown discrimination and discernment in summarizing accurately so vast a theological output as that produced by Cocceius. In addition, van Asselt has mastered both the history and theology of the Reformed covenantal tradition, evident in his judicious handling of important doctrinal elements within scholastic orthodoxy.

As made crystal clear in this study, the warp and woof of Cocceius's covenant theology is the traditional Protestant Law/Gospel antithesis, what van Asselt identifies as "the hub upon which the whole wheel of dogmatics turns" (p. 1). Unquestionably, the Law/Gospel contrast is the central plank in Protestant-Reformed theology, especially in the doctrine of the covenant(s), the principium of Cocceius's theology (p. 143). At the same time, van Asselt rightly points out that this theological interpretation of the Bible is decidedly practical and devotional in orientation (which may explain, in part, the appeal of covenant theology to the English Puritans and the Dutch precisionists): "Above all, the interpretation of the Scripture is to be undertaken by and for the Church. For this reason, there must not be an absolute separation between exegesis and proclamation" (p. 134). There are, observes van Asselt, "two factors to which we must pay attention in our analysis of Cocceius' theological method. The first is the doctrine of the covenant and the pinnacle or crown, the epitome, and the goal of the whole of the theological enterprise (totius theologiae apex, consummatio et finis); the second is the concept of the twofold knowledge of God. These two aspects are the two factors which together characterize the structure of Cocceius' theology. Essential for the interpretation of Cocceius' theology is the role that the interpreter assigns to each of these factors in elucidating Cocceius' theological system" (p. 143).

We begin by commenting briefly on Cocceius's doctrine of the knowledge of God in relation to the divine covenants. The idea of covenant as relationship with God (though broken by virtue of the sin of our first parents in the Garden of Eden) is innate. All humankind has some sense of and longing for relationship with God (p. 39, cf. p. 151; see also the discussion of Jirgen Moltmann's analysis of the concept of amicitia in Cocceius's theology, 311-12). One of the unsettled, contentious questions relating to Cocceius's thought is the matter of the relation between theology and (Cartesian) philosophy, more specifically, the place of natural theology in his dogmatics. (This is perhaps the least satisfying section of van Asselt's presentation, in that it leaves the reader with many unanswered questions, especially with regard to Cocceius's use of the "proofs" for the existence of God. Among other things, this reviewer would like to have seen some interaction with the incisive critique of the traditional proofs found in the work of the American-Dutch theologian Cornelius Van Til.) Van Asselt states that "natural knowledge of God and revelation are not mutually exclusive; they complement each other" (p. 69), without ever defining precisely what he means by the term "natural revelation" or "natural theology." There is a right and a wrong interpretation and employment of such revelation from God. In the first place, we do recognize that there are those truths that God has implanted within the human heart, truths which are universally suppressed in unrighteousness, to one degree or another. But secondly, these remnants of truth-what constitutes, in part, the grounds for human accountability and obedience to God-are never the source of theology, simply because they are insufficient and unreliable in the repristination of divine revelation (including redemptive revelation now necessary for our salvation). Concerning the views of Cocceius, van Asselt concedes: "The real truth about salvation must be drawn from the word of revelation. Reason (ratio), therefore, cannot be the principium fidei" (p. 69). He ends this section on the knowledge of God by asserting: "[Cocceius's] 'epistemology' has a theological purpose, but he also includes Christology in this discussion; nor is the pneumatological element lacking from the mix. Without the love and fear of the Lord, which are bestowed by the Holy Spirit, none of the areas of theology can be properly studied" (p. 71). The reader is still left with a number of unanswered questions. It is not sufficient to say that "external factors brought Cocceianism and Cartesianism together" (p. 83)? Why did Cocceius resort to its use? Nor is it an adequate or compelling reason to conclude that "there were common enemies to be fought, and thus the two systems were, so to speak, driven into an alliance" (p. 83). I would agree with van Asselt, in any case, that the question of the relationship between philosophy and theology in Cocceius's thought is not finally answered by reference to the larger issue of the relationship between Protestant-Reformed orthodoxy and scholasticism (viewed as a theological methodology). One can employ the scholastic method without confounding speculative natural theology and revealed theology.