It is commonly agreed that, in the seventeenth century, philosophy and theology parted ways. Historians of philosophy usually focus on those thinkers who represent this secularizing tendency. However, the separation of philosophy from theology was not a self-evident or uncontested process. Paying attention to just the “modern” side distorts our understanding of the intellectual developments in this period. Many of the “conservative” thinkers too, who engaged in philosophy from a more biblicist or traditional standpoint, deserve to be taken seriously. This study by Aza Goudriaan is therefore most welcome.

Goudriaan analyzes the philosophical thought of three major Dutch Reformed theologians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The first is Gisbertus Voetius. This appears to be a logical choice. Voetius was an enormously influential theologian, as well as one of the principal spiritual leaders in the Dutch Reformed Church. As a champion of neo-scholasticism and Aristotelianism, he became one of the main opponents of René Descartes and his Dutch followers. The second is Petrus van Mastricht, a pupil of Voetius who succeeded him as professor of theology at Utrecht. The third, Anthonius Driessen, professor at Groningen, had a somewhat different background. Driessen was not only from a younger generation than Voetius and Van Mastricht, but he had also been raised in a different theological “school” of reformed orthodoxy: Carteio-Cocceianism. Moreover, he had an open eye for developments in Germany. All three took part in the philosophical debates of their time, mainly as opponents of the new philosophical tendencies. (Driessen, though raised a Cartesian, later in life openly repudiated Descartes.) Goudriaan discusses their ideas based on an extensive reading of their writings. In the case of Van Mastricht and Driessen, this implies works of systematic theology. Voetius never wrote a large book, but he did compose a large number of disputations. Moreover, all three were involved in several controversies, although Voetius preferred to encourage others to write rather than to react himself.

The book follows a systematic order, with the several chapters each discussing a particular theological issue along with its philosophical bearings. Goudriaan deals successively with the relation between reason and revelation; the explanation of the physical world (in relation to Creation and to what the Bible says about it); the question of providence; man (the relation between soul and body, conscience); and divine and natural law. He finds that, as could be expected, the views of Voetius and Van Mastricht converged closely. Both aligned themselves with Aristotelian philosophy. This neo-Aristotelianism presented a full-flung system, not just a refuge from more secularizing tendencies. Voetius in any case formulated his basic tenets before he learned about Descartes. Driessen's views deviated on certain points. He appears influenced by the corpuscular view of nature. Substantial forms hardly played a role in his thought. Still, he did maintain that, contrary to mechanistic principles, things have natures of their own, thus keeping to a basic principle of Aristotelian philosophy.

This persistence of Aristotelian concepts is intriguing. Even without regarding “neo-scholasticism,” as has often been done, as religiously stiffening and intellectually uninteresting, it should be admitted that during the period under review, the concepts of Aristotelian philosophy were devaluated from THE tool for interpreting the world as a whole into an instrument that might be useful for theologians, but they had become obsolete in many other fields. On reading this book, one gets the impression that Aristotelianism was attractive to theologians exactly because of its inexactness. As Goudriaan's overview makes abundantly clear, Voetius, Van Mastricht, and Driessen were not interested in philosophy for its own sake. Their principle of knowledge and touchstone of truth remained in any case the Bible. (Some questions, as in particular the way God's providence becomes visible in history, even are discussed on the basis of exegetics only.) Whereas the mathematical rigor of Descartes and later philosophers proved its worth in natural philosophy, it was absolutely unsuitable for grasping the many ambiguities, or even paradoxes, of the human condition or of religious belief. Aristotelianism, on the other hand, easily molded to the demands of theology. When Voetius wanted to explain that God is the cause of everything but should not be held responsible for sin, he found an Aristotelian terminology (first cause versus secondary causes) ready at hand. In the work of Descartes, or other modern philosophers, this is mere idle talk.

Goudriaan's treatment of the way these three theologians dealt with the various issues at stake is comprehensive, well-balanced, and judicious. This book will be the authoritative overview of the philosophical ideas of Dutch Reformed theologians for a long time to come. Goudriaan does not use his analysis to come to any more general conclusions about reformed neo-scholasticism, its place in history, or its role in society or in the Church. In some cases, he relates the views he studies to the philosophical challenges of the time—to points raised by Spinoza, or Wolff. But when he discusses the issue of toleration, he is not interested in the practical questions that were at stake. He deals with toleration completely as an abstract philosophical issue, just as the theologians themselves presented it, of course. This clearly is a legitimate approach in a work on the history of philosophy. But as the book does little to explain the wider significance of the subject, probably only people who are already convinced that the philosophical ideas of these theologians are worth studying will take a closer look at it. That would be a pity, as Goudriaan's book is an impressive study on a subject that deserves to receive more attention.