De Moor I:7: Archetypal Theology

Hastening on to True Theology, we observe that this, although with respect to the substance of the matter it be One, is able to be called manifold in relation to the Subjects to whom it is attributed.  And thus indeed it is either Archetypal, or Ectypal.

              Archetypal Theology is not simply to be described as God’s Knowledge concerning Himself; but, if we wish to consider the Infinite Theology of God as a τύπον/type and πρωτότυπον/prototypical exemplar, according to which our Theology ought to be formed, it is to be added, which He decreed to manifest to the creature.  And thus the Theology of the Creatures shall be a true Ectype, or the Image of the Archetype expressed in Creatures.  It does not appear that this distinction is controverted very much:  1.  for it is evident that God knows Himself most completely, and so no one is a more perfect θεολόγον/theologian, Matthew 11:27, neither in this particular is the Holy Spirit inferior to the Father or the Son, 1 Corinthians 2:10, 11.  2.  It is no less certain that God has decreed to communicate some knowledge of Himself with Creatures, 1 Corinthians 2:7.  3.  Neither will any of our Theology be able to be described as true, which does not correspond to that Knowledge of God concerning Himself and divine things, which Knowledge He decreed to be manifested to us in one way or another.  4.  If the Knowledge of God also has regard to the Image of God, should not that Knowledge be called Ectypal, of which that Knowledge of God in God shall be the archetypal exemplar? yes, indeed, Colossians 3:10, ἐνδυσάμενοι τὸν νέον (ἄνθρωπον), τὸν ἀνακαινούμενον εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν κατ᾽ εἰκόνα τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτόν, having put on the new (man), which is renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created him.  5.  The Sacred Scripture is said to deliver to us τύπον διδαχῆς, the form/type of doctrine, Romans 6:17, ὑποτύπωσιν ὑγιαινόντων λόγων, the pattern/prototype of sound words, 2 Timothy 1:13; but this is that knowledge of divine things revealed to us by the decree of God, in accordance with which our subjective Theology ought to be formed:  so that to this extent this division of Theology also agrees quite well with the expression of Scripture.  6.  Finally, this distinction shall be useful for this, that a Theologian might piously learn how to engage in the meditation of divine things, and thus from God to have an understanding in those things which have regard unto God, so that in his knowledge of God he might not deviate from that which of God and by God has been revealed to the creature.

              The Most Illustrious REINERUS VOGELSANG, Minster of the Word and Professor of Theology at Silva-Ducis,[1] in his Exercitationibus Theologicis, Exercitation I, § 8, page 3, objects, “God is the fount of all wisdom and an inexhaustible spring:  nevertheless, no one has yet been found to be such a hairsplitter, that he would obtrude a Logical, Ontological, Arithmetical, Physical, Astrological, Pneumatic knowledge, each as if a double knowledge, Archetypal and Ectypal.”  Similarly what the Most Illustrious BRAUN[2] has in his Doctrina Foederum, locus I, chapter I, § 5, page 3.  Responses:  1.  A different rationale belongs to Theology and to the other disciplines which we have just mentioned:  α.  Theology, having God Himself as its object, in dignity far excels the remaining disciplines, and pertains to the Image of God primarily; the remaining disciplines only secondarily.  β.  God has not to such an extent delineated to us an express type of the other disciplines, as He has in the case of Theology, especially as it is revealed in His Word, unto which norm our Knowledge ought to be conformed.  2.  Nevertheless, if anyone should wish to recognize a certain Archetypal Knowledge in God, and Ectypal in creatures, in the other arts and sciences also; it would be allowed by us, although in a less emphatic sense.

              If you should object in addition, that the Infinite knowledge of the infinite God is not able to be expressed in Creatures, and so the division of Theology into Archetypal and Ectypal falls.  Responses:  Therefore we do not simply call the Knowledge of God concerning Himself Archetypal Theology; but, in a limited way, that which He decreed to reveal to the creature.  2.  By equal right you would deny that man was able to be created according to the Image of God, because God’s infinite virtues of Wisdom and Holiness were not able to be expressed in a finite creature.  Now, that expression requires a proportion of analogy and similitude, not necessarily of commensuration; although even the latter is able to be said to be present in Ectypal Theology, if you attend to the Decree of God concerning the revelation of the knowledge of Himself.

              But also LIMBORCH among the Remonstrants[3] says, among other things, in his Theologia Christiana, book I, chapter I, § 2, page 1, that Theology is viciously divided into Archetypal and Ectypal, inasmuch as this would be prejudicial to divine Freedom, and transmute God into one acting necessarily.  Responses:  1.  Not at all, for Archetypal Theology embraces as much the free Knowledge of God, as the natural and necessary:  as Ectypal Theology also contains in itself the Knowledge, not only of the divine persons and perfection; but also of those actions, which flow from the free counsel of divine grace.  2.  But here perhaps a snake lurks in the grass:  and the true reason why this division is not satisfactory to the Remonstrants perhaps shall be that, according to the Socinians and Remonstrants, Religion is summed up in Observance of commandments and Hope of promises; to which we add the Knowledge of things to be believed, and among other things the Knowledge of the Trinity also; which those either reject, or judge less necessary:  but it is not able to be denied that Archetypal Theology includes this knowledge; to which if Ectypal Theology ought to correspond, the matter shall be concluded and the quarrel decided in our favor.

[1] Reinerus Vogelsang (1610-1679) was a Reformed divine, and Professor of Theology at Deventer (1676-1679).  Silva-Ducis is the Latin name of ’s-Hertogenbosch, a city in the southern Netherlands.

[2] Johannes Braun (1628-1708) was a Reformed theologian.  He served as Professor of Theology at Groningen (1680-1708).

[3] Philip van Limborch (1633-1712) was a Dutch Remonstrant pastor and theologian, and Professor of Theology at Amsterdam (1667-1712).