Rowling

Before Harry Potter, a different sort of Rowling made an impression upon 19th century Princeton divinity students:

Charles Hodge, Princeton Theological Seminary: A Discourse Delivered at the Re-Opening of the Chapel, September 27, 1874, pp. 18-20:

As to the method of instruction adopted by our first professors little need be said. They both used text-books where they could be had. Dr. Alexander's text-book in theology was Turrettin's Theologia Elenchtica, one of the most perspicuous books ever written. In the discussion of every subject it begins with the Status Quaestionis, stating that the question is not this or that; neither this nor that, until every foreign element is eliminated, and then the precise point in hand is laid down with unmistakable precision. Then follow in distinct paragraphs, numbered one, two, three, and so on, the arguments in its support. Then come the Fontes Solutionum, or answers to objections. The first objection is stated with the answer; then the second, and so on to the end. Dr. Alexander was accustomed to give us from twenty to forty quarto pages, in Latin, to read for a recitation. And we did read them. When we came to recite, the professor would place the book before him and ask, What is the State of Question? What is the first argument? What is the second, &c? Then what is the first objection and its answer? What the second, &c? There were some of my classmates, Dr. Johns the present bishop of the Episcopal Church in Virginia, for example, who would day after day be able to give the State of the Question, all the arguments in its support in their order, all the objections and the answers to them, through the whole thirty or forty pages, without the professor saying a word to him. This is what in the College of New Jersey used to be called rowling. Whatever may be thought of this method of instruction, it was certainly effective. A man who had passed through that drill never got over it. Some years ago I heard the late Bishop McIlvaine preach a very orthodox sermon in the Episcopal Church in this place. When we got home, it being a very warm day, he threw himself on the bed to rest. In the course of conversation he happened to remark that a certain professor failed to make any marks on the minds of his students. I said to him, "Old Turrettin, it seems, has left his mark on your mind." He sprang from the bed, exclaiming, "That indeed he has, and I would give any thing to see his theology translated and made the text-book in all our Seminaries." The Jesuits are wise in their generation, and they have adopted this method of instruction in their institutions.

Nadere Reformatie on Common Grace

Herman Kuiper, Calvin on Common Grace, Appendix, pp. i-iv:

Petrus van Mastricht, professor at Utrecht in the latter half of the seventeenth century, and author of a work on Reformed Dogmatics which still has an excellent reputation, recognizes two kinds of divine grace besides saving grace. He speaks of a universal grace, by which God dispenses what he terms natural gifts to each and every creature. According to this author we must attribute to this universal grace food and drink and all those things which are necessary for the preservation of man and beast, and especially those gifts and powers which belong to the nature of man and constitute him a free agent. Van Mastricht also makes mention of a common grace, by which God grants promiscuously to both the elect and the reprobate gifts which pertain to men as moral beings. To this common grace he attributes not only such gifts as ingenuity, wisdom, prudence and all the moral virtues found among the heathen and the unbelieving, but also those gifts which seem to be much more closely related to the benefits of saving grace, namely, the external preaching of the Word and a certain illumination by the Holy Spirit such as is found in men who have temporary faith. 1

Johannes à Marck [(1656-1731)], another very prominent theologian, published in 1686 a compendium which exerted great influence on many succeeding generations of Reformed thinkers. In treating of divine grace he first of all distinguishes between grace as a divine attribute and grace in the sense of the gifts of God's gratuitous favor. With respect to grace in the latter sense he accepts among others the division of common and saving grace. 2 It is remarkable, however, that he usually speaks of a more common grace instead of simply saying common grace when he refers to the divine grace granted to the non-elect. So, for instance, he declares that temporary faith differs from saving faith not only as to its duration but also [as] to its origin, its origin being not truly saving grace, but a more common grace. 3 It is also worthy of note that this writer considers the external preaching of the Gospel, which extends beyond the circle of the elect, a fruit of the more common grace of God, 4 and that he teaches that many of the blessings which redound to those who perish, such as the proclamation of the Gospel, the abolition of idolatry and the illumination of the Spirit, are blessings which proceed from the sacrifice of Christ 5 -- an idea also found with Turretinus 6 and Witsius. 7

Wilhelmus à Brakel, a minister of the Gospel in Rotterdam, published in the year 1700 a popular dogmatics bearing the title Redelyke Godsdienst [The Christian's Reasonable Service]. However men may differ as to the merits of this work, it can hardly be gainsaid that Brakel was in his day the spokesman of a large group of Reformed believers. Speaking of the grace of God, Brakel, after combatting various divisions of grace which he considered erroneous, presents his own scheme in Vol. I, Chapter 30, Section 26. Here it is: [what follows is translated from The Christian's Reasonable Service, Vol. 2, p. 215, one of at least three places à Brakel addresses and distinguishes common and saving grace in this systematic theology: "(1) There must be a distinction between the gift of grace and the given grace. The gift of grace is the goodness of God, the fountain from whom proceeds all the good which a man receives. Given grace refers to the benefits which man receives, has, and possesses. ... (2) Grace is either common or special. God bestows common grace upon all men by granting them temporal benefits. “Nevertheless He left not himself without witness, in that He did good, and gave us rain from heaven” (Acts 14:17). To this grace also belongs all the good which God bestows all who are called, by giving them the Word–the means unto repentance and salvation. “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men” (Titus 2:11). In addition to this, God generally gives illumination, historical faith, convictions, and inner persuasions to almost become a Christian (cf. Heb. 6:4-6).

Special grace is the effectual call whereby man is illuminated with wondrous spiritual light, effectually changing his wil, and thus in very deed translating him out of darkness into light, out of death to life, and from the dominion of sin and the devil to Christ and His kingdom."]

From this citation it is clear that Brakel attributes to common grace the bodily blessings men receive, the preaching of the Gospel, historical faith and all those gifts of the Spirit which are granted to those who have temporary faith.

1 P. van Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia, II, 17, 18....II, 17, 16...II, 17, 17...II, 17, 32...

2 Johannes à Marck, Compendium Theologiae Christianae Didactico-Elencticum, IV, 42...

3 idem, XXII, 8...

4 idem, XVIII, 16...

5 idem, XX, 24...

6 F. Turretinus, Institutio Theologiae Elencticae, XIV, 14, 11...

7 H. Witsius, De Oeconomia Foederum Dei, II, 9, 4...

Theodidactic

Theodidactic, or 'God-taught,' is a term which describes how the whole counsel of God, including the judicial laws delivered by Moses, whose force expired along with the state of Israel, except to the extent that they reflect the general equity of the moral law, can and should inform Christian magistrates seeking to rule with wisdom and discretion. George Gillespie wished, for his part, that the judicial laws, being a part of God's Word, "were more consulted with." William Gouge said that they "remain as good directions to order even Christian politics accordingly."

As to the whole counsel of God, the Westminster Divines teach that it provides all that we need for the life of man to be lived to God's glory, and yet some things "common to human actions and societies,... are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed" (WCF 1.6).

The whole counsel of God, then, does not exclude the application of the light of nature and Christian prudence in the regulation of what is appropriate and common to human societies, but provides general rules which are always to be observed, even by Christian magistrates.

To explain further, I wrote the following in a chapter called "The Puritan Legacy Considered" at the conclusion of an essay by Dr. Steven Dilday on Postmodern Skepticism, Relativism, and Religious Toleration in the Light of the Westminster Standards and the Thought of George Gillespie, found in Steven Dilday, Two Essays on the Thought of George Gillespie (2009, ed., R. Andrew Myers), pp. 48-49:

And finally, this Biblical paradigm [the Puritan view of magistracy] is theodidactic,4 allowing for the employment of magisterial wisdom and discretion grounded in the whole counsel of God, rather than being confined to a blanket application of Mosaic law. As Gillespie noted:

I know some divines hold that the judicial law of Moses, so far as concerneth the punishments of sins against the moral law, idolatry, blasphemy, Sabbath-breaking, adultery, theft, etc., ought to be a rule to the Christian magistrate; and, for my part, I wish more respect were had to it, and that it were more consulted with.5

The judicial laws of Moses are indeed of great use to Christian magistrates today,1 being part of the whole of Scripture, all of which is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16); and, although they are no longer nomos/law, having "expired with the state of Israel" (WCF 19:4), they are still didache, that is, part of the teaching of the Word of God.

4. The contribution of Rev. Matthew Winzer to the understanding of this term is gratefully acknowledged.

5. Ibid [Aaron's Rod Blossoming], 2.

1. Judicial laws, grounded in moral equity, "remain as good directions to order even Christian politics accordingly." William Gouge, Commentary on Hebrews (London, 1655; Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2006, reprint of 1980 Kregel Publications ed. and 1866 Nichols ed.) vol. 1, 505.

That right discernment of judicial laws, as to what of general equity binds Christian magistrates today and what of that which was peculiar and temporary with respect to a nation whose polity has ceased does not, requires intimate acquaintance with the whole of counsel of God, goes without saying. Like Joshua, the Christian magistrate ought to "meditate...day and night" upon the whole of God's Word, including "the book of the law" that he might rule with wisdom and good success (Jos. 1.8).

That discernment is reflected in the Reply of Thomas Cartwright to the Answer to the Admontion to Parliament, as quoted by Archbishop John Whitgift in his Works, Vol. 1, p. 270:

And, as for the judicial law, forasmuch as there are some of them made in regard of the region where they were given, and of a people to whom they were given, the prince and magistrate, keeping the substance and equity of them (as it were the marrow), may change the circumstances of them, as the times and places and manners of the people shall require. But to say that any magistrate can save the life of blasphemers, contempuous and stubborn idolaters, murderers, adulterers, incestuous persons, and such like, which God by his judicial law hath commanded to be put to death, I do utterly deny, and am ready to prove, if that pertained to this question. And therefore, although the judicial laws are permitted to the discretion of the prince and magistrate, yet not so generally as you seem to affirm, and, as I have oftentimes said, that not only it must not be done against the word, but according to the word, and by it.

And in Cartwright's Second Reply he adds:

It is not that the magistrate is simply bound unto the judicial laws of Moses, that that he is bound to the equity, which I also called the substance and marrow of them.

Francis Turretin provides guidelines for the exercise of this discernment likewise, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 2, pp. 165-167:

Twenty-Sixth Question
Whether the judicial law was abrogated under the New Testament. We make distinctions.
...
III. In that law various ends must be distinguished....Undoubtedly those things are to be accurately distinguished which in the law were of particular right (which peculiarly applied to the Jews in relation to time, place and Jewish nation: such was the law concerning a husband's brother, the writing of divorcement, the gleaning, etc.) from those which were of common and universal right, founded upon the law of nature common to all (such as the laws concerning trials and the punishment of crimes widows, orphans, strangers and the like, which are of moral and common right). As to the former, they may well be said to have been abrogated because the Jewish polity having been taken away, whatever had a peculiar relation to it must also necessarily have ceased. But as to the latter, it still remains because it enters into the nature of the moral and perpetual law and was commanded to the Jews not as Jews simply, but as men subject with others to the law of nature. For distinguishing those things which are of common and particular right, a threefold criterion can be employed. (1) That what prevails not only among the Jews, but also among the Gentiles (following the light of right reason) is of common right. Thus the Greeks, Romans and others had their laws in which are many things agreeing with the divine laws (which even a comparison of the Mosaic and Roman law alone, instituted by various persons, teaches). (2) What is found to be conformed to the precepts of the decalogue and serves to explain and conform it. This is easily gathered, if either the object and the matter of the laws or the causes of sanctioning them are attended to. (3) The things so repeated in the New Testament that their observance is commended to Christians.

The Christian magistrate, therefore, as a minister of God (Rom. 13.4) -- like the minister of the Word who must rightly divide the word of truth (2 Tim. 2.15) -- must be informed by the Word of God, which generally is his rule, as it is of all Christians, according to the moral law; and as the judicial law is of special interest to magistrates as a divine exemplar, so it is to be referred to and "consulted with" as they provide "good directions to order even Christian politics accordingly," with appropriate distinctions made according to the "light of nature and Christian prudence." Hence, as the Apostle says, "For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope" (Rom. 15.4), and thus the judicial law too may teach us, and is therefore theodidactic, that is, not nomos, but didache.

Tripartite Division of God's Law

The threefold division of God's law -- expressed as the moral, ceremonial and judicial law -- receives confessional status in the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. 19.

John Calvin refers to it as a "well-known division" (Institutes 4.20.14):

We must attend to the well-known division which distributes the whole law of God, as promulgated by Moses, into the moral, the ceremonial, and the judicial law, and we must attend to each of these parts, in order to understand how far they do, or do not, pertain to us. Meanwhile, let no one be moved by the thought that the judicial and ceremonial laws relate to morals. For the ancients who adopted this division, though they were not unaware that the two latter classes had to do with morals, did not give them the name of moral, because they might be changed and abrogated without affecting morals. They give this name specially to the first class, without which, true holiness of life and an immutable rule of conduct cannot exist.

Herman Witsius cites Calvin's successor likewise, The Economy of the Covenants, Vol. 2, p. 167:

And this very learned author himself [Theodore Beza] has elsewhere observed, that the words, {Heb.}, law, statutes, and judgments, are often synonymous; but whenever they are thus joined together, they are distinguished from each other by a peculiar signification; and that by {Heb.} is understood the moral law; by {Heb.}, the ceremonial, and by {Heb.} the forensic law.

Witsius goes on (pp. 168-169) to commend and quote John Lightfoot's summary of the tripartite division of the law.

John Lightfoot, Erubhin, or, Miscellanies, Chap. 59, in Works, Vol. 4, p. 79:

The ceremonial law, that concerned only the Jews, was given to Moses in private, in the tabernacle; and fell with the tabernacle, when the veil rent in twain. The moral law concerns the whole world; and it was given in sight of the whole world, on the top of a mountain; and must endure as long, as any mountain standeth. The judicial law (which is more indifferent, and may stand or fall, as seems best for the good of a commonwealth) was given, neither so public as the one, nor so private as the other; but in a mean between both.

Historically, this division of the Mosaic law can be traced back to Thomas Aquinas.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae Ia IIa q. 99, a. 4:

Article 4. Whether, besides the moral and ceremonial precepts, there are also judicial precepts?
...
It is written (Deuteronomy 6:1): "These are the precepts and ceremonies, and judgments": where "precepts" stands for "moral precepts" antonomastically. Therefore there are judicial precepts besides moral and ceremonial precepts.
I answer that, As stated above (2,3), it belongs to the Divine law to direct men to one another and to God. Now each of these belongs in the abstract to the dictates of the natural law, to which dictates the moral precepts are to be referred: yet each of them has to be determined by Divine or human law, because naturally known principles are universal, both in speculative and in practical matters. Accordingly just as the determination of the universal principle about Divine worship is effected by the ceremonial precepts, so the determination of the general precepts of that justice which is to be observed among men is effected by the judicial precepts.
We must therefore distinguish three kinds of precept in the Old Law; viz. "moral" precepts, which are dictated by the natural law; "ceremonial" precepts, which are determinations of the Divine worship; and "judicial" precepts, which are determinations of the justice Apostle to be maintained among men. Wherefore the Apostle (Romans 7:12) after saying that the "Law is holy," adds that "the commandment is just, and holy, and good": "just," in respect of the judicial precepts; "holy," with regard to the ceremonial precepts (since the word "sanctus"--"holy"--is applied to that which is consecrated to God); and "good," i.e. conducive to virtue, as to the moral precepts.

Jonathan F. Bayes, in an article entitled The Threefold Division of the Law, traces the history of this construct of God's law back further to Justin Martyr and Barnabas. His essay is well worth reading.

Exegetically, the Reformed and others have looked to such scriptures which speak of "commandments, statutes and judgments" as Gen. 26.5; Deut. 5.31, 6.1, 11.1; and elsewhere, to rightly divide the law of God.

Matthew Poole, Synopsis Criticorum (Dr. Steven Dilday, trans., 2008 ed.), Vol. 3, pp. 78-79 (Gen. 26.5):

[And he kept my precepts, etc....] My observances...This is the name of a genus, of which three species follow (Ainsworth, Malvenda). [Heb.]/precepts are appointed to have respect to the moral law (Ainsworth, Dutch): {Heb.}/statutes, either the ceremonial law (Dutch, Malvenda), or natural law; for example, thou shalt worship one God (Ibn Ezra in Munster): {Heb.}/laws, either they look toward the doctrine which we are held to believe (Dutch), or unto ceremonies (Ibn Ezra in Munster). To these elsewhere are added {Heb.}/judgments, that is, political laws (Dutch).

Dutch Annotations:

Gen. 26.5 - my Commandments...my precepts, my institutions, (or statutes) and my laws [These four several terms are held to be thus distinguished; the first of all to be the general term, signifying whatsoever God commanded and ordained; and the latter three to respect things particular; as the precepts of the moral law; the institutions or statutes on the Ceremonial law, the laws on the doctrine of what we are obliged to believe, &c. Elsewhere there are added unto these, the rights, whereby are understood the Civil or Political Laws, Deut. 11.1.]

Deut. 5.31 - all the Commandements, and the Statutes, and the Judgments; [Concerning these three words immediately following each other; (according to the opinion of most Interpreters) the first of them signifieth the Moral Law, the second, the Ceremonial Laws, and the third the Judicial or Civil Laws]

Henry Ainsworth, Annotations on the Pentateuch and the Psalms, Vol. 1, p. 136 (Gen. 26.5):

Charge] Heb. keeping, or observation: that is, 'ordinances to be kept.' So in Lev. viii. 35 xxii. 9 Deut. xi. 1. Laws,] For this word, elsewhere the scriptures saith, 'judgments,' Deut. xi. 1 v. 1, 31. vi. 1, 20. vii. 11. viii. 11, &c. and under these three particulars, the whole 'charge' or 'custody' forespoken of, is comprehended; as afterward by Moses God gave the ten 'commandments,' or moral precepts, Exod. xx. 'Judgments,' or judicial laws for punishing transgressors, Exod. xxi, &c. 'and statutes,' or 'rules, ordinances,' and 'decrees,' for the service of God, Lev. iii. 17. vi. 18, 22. Exod. xii. 24. xxvii. 31. xxix. 9. xxx. 31. All which Abraham observed, and is commended of God therefore.

Francis Turretin, finally, provides a cogent explanation for the threefold division of God's law, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 2, pp. 145-146:

Twenty-Fourth Question: The Ceremonial Law
What was the end and the use of the ceremonial law under the Old Testament?

The Mosaic law threefold: moral, ceremonial, forensic.

I. The law given by Moses is usually distinguished into three species: moral (treating of morals or of perpetual duties towards God and our neighbor); ceremonial (of the ceremonies or rites about the sacred things to be observed under the Old Testament); and civil, constituting the civil government of the Israelite people. The first is the foundation upon which rests the obligation of the others and these are its appendices and determinations. Ceremonial has respect to the first table determining its circumstances, especially as to external worship. Civil has respect to the second table in judicial things, although it lays down punishments for crimes committed against the firs table.

Foundation of the distinction.

II. The truth of this distinction appears from the diversity of the names by which it is designated in the Scriptures. The moral law is for the most part expressed by mtsvth ("precepts"), the ceremonial by chqym ("statutes") and the judicial by mshptym ("judgments"), which the Septuagint renders by entolas, dikaiomata and krimata. "I will speak unto thee all the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which thou shalt teach them" (Dt. 5:31); so also in 6:1, 20; 7:11; and Lev. 26:46. Sometimes however these words are synonymous and used promiscuously (Ezk. 5:6; 20:11, 16, 18). But the distinction appears principally from the nature of the thing and the office of the law (whose it is to settle the order according to which man is joined to God and his neighbor). Now man is joined to God first by a certain internal and external likeness -- in love and justice, holiness and truth, whose rule the moral law delivers. Again by the external signification and testification of those acts of divine worship (marks and symbols being employed) whose use the ceremonial law prescribes. Finally, what duty man owes to man, the civil law (applied more distinctly to the Israelites) explains. The moral law regards the Israelite people as men; the ceremonial as the church of the Old Testament expecting the promised Messiah; the civil regards them as a peculiar people who in the land of Canaan ought to have a republic suiting their genius and disposition.

Difference between the moral law and others.

III. Hence arises a manifold difference between the moral law and others both in origin (because the moral is founded upon natural right and on this account is known by nature; but the others upon positive right and on this account are from free revelation) and in duration. The former is immutable and eternal; the latter mutable and temporary. In regard to object, the one is universal embracing all; the others particular applying only to the Jews (the civil, indeed, inasmuch as it regarded them as a distinct state dedicated to God; the ceremonial, however, referring to their ecclesiastical state and state of minority and infancy). In regard to use, the moral is the end of the others, while the others are subservient to the moral. Thus far we have spoken of the moral; now we must discuss the ceremonial.

Works of Francis Turretin

A variety of extracts from the famous Institutes of Elenctic Theology by Francis Turretin are available in English online (see here, here and here), including his Seventh Disputation on Antichrist.

In Latin, the three-volume Institutes is available online here; as well as at Google Books: Vol. 1, Vol. 2 and Vol. 3. Additionally, the fourth volume of his works, his Disputationes, which as far as I know has never been translated into English, is available online in Latin here.

It has been said that:

Among Reformed Theologians of the world, both present and past, Francis Turretin's Insitutio fairs among the greatest Protestant theological work ever written. And if more disciples of Jesus Christ were to pick this work up and read it, then live it, the church would a force to be reckoned with in this 21st century. We may compare Turretin's work against Luther's voluminous productions, Calvin's writings, and others. Yet, I believe Turretin's theological compilation and sheer depth outweighs them all. Some may disagree knowing Calvin and Luther, and others, were the foundations on which Turretin's biblical theology emerged, and this may be true, yet, his logic, order, and keen insight into the Scriptures shines brighter among the scholastics than any I know.