Academic literature on the topic 'Dutch Doctrinal works'

At the core of the Reformation lies the belief that good works are excluded from man’s justification before God. Roman Catholic adversaries feared the rise of immorality and thus accused the Reformed of antinomianism. In this paper the term “doctrinal antinomians” is used for those who deny any human activity within the order of salvation. Within the Reformed tradition we do indeed find examples of such antinomians. As might be expected, they were highly criticised from within their own Reformed camp. However, as part of their defensive strategy they appealed to Calvin as one of their champions. This paper first investigates the manner in which the antinomians referred to him, and then goes on to consider whether their appeal is justified. In order to evaluate to what extent antinomian aspects can be detected in Calvin’s theology, the analysis of the antinomian position by Herman Witsius, a seventeenth-century Dutch theologian, will be used as an investigative tool.

THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION: A Constructive Kuyperian Approach by Bruce Riley Ashford and Craig G. Bartholomew. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2020. 366 pages, appendix, bibliography, index. Hardcover; $50.00. ISBN: 9780830854905. *This book is a welcome addition to our need for more work on the doctrine of creation. The authors, one Baptist (Ashford) and one Anglican (Bartholomew), offer what they term a "Kuyperian" or Dutch neo-Calvinist perspective (perhaps more properly, neo-Reformed?). They seek to be exegetical, not merely creedal, in their exposition. In 366 pages of text, they offer a doctrine of creation that comprehends the classical loci and add some of more recent concern. *The authors cover the classical loci in a systematic, well-organized way. In the first, creedally based, chapter, they lay out their approach and orient readers to their exposition of the doctrine. The following two chapters provide a brief but very well-done history of the doctrine. In the chapter from the early church up to the modern period, they survey the teachers of the church, with Irenaeus holding pride of place. This survey touches on the right people and draws out the constructive contributions that each makes. The only group that is treated almost entirely negatively is, predictably, the Anabaptists (pp. 66-68). The authors select negative examples, confuse an Anabaptist doctrine of the world with a doctrine of creation, and make tendentious use of selective quotes. It's hard to credit Anabaptists with a denigration of creation (or earthly matters) when they have well-formed practices of communal life, the sharing of goods, and, to be anachronistic, a thoughtful political theology rooted in particular practices of pacifism. Anabaptists are far from perfect, but they do not lack a doctrine of creation. It's just not one that's discernible through Dutch neo-Calvinist eyes. *The following chapter is an insightful tour of some highlights of the Modern Period with welcome attention to the wrongly neglected Johann Georg Hamann (pp. 75-80). In a clear and concise account of interpretations of Genesis 1 and the entanglement of God, creation, and science, Ashford and Bartholomew describe five positions that depend on "the conclusions of modern science" (p. 98). They then espouse a "literary framework theory" represented by Lee Irons and Meredith Kline, which argues that Genesis 1 reveals "three creation kingdoms" (days 1-3) and "three creation kings" (days 4-6). The picture is completed on day 7 when "God establishes himself as King on the Sabbath" (p. 98). This is filled out in the authors' later chapter on Genesis 1: the three creation kingdoms are "light; sky/seas; land/vegetation;" the three creation kings are "luminaries; sea creatures/winged creatures; land animals/men" (sic, pp. 155-70). This chapter concludes with a foundational assertion: "In the twenty-first century, a full-orbed Irenaean doctrine of creation presents itself as a salient remedy for the ills of our modern and postmodern eras ... Among Christian traditions in the modern period, the Dutch neo-Calvinist tradition is, in our opinion, particularly fruitful in providing resources for a recovery and renewal of the Irenaean doctrine of creation" (p. 99). *Following from this, the authors "outline the broad contours of the neo-Calvinist view of creation in seven propositions ..." (p. 103). Most of these propositions are familiar and commonplace within Christian orthodoxy. But two require further comment. The sixth proposition states that "sin and evil cannot corrupt God's good creation structurally or substantially" (p. 102; italics theirs). There may be profound truth in this, but the question of corrupt structures must be clarified. How does a "Kuyperian approach" empower a critique of injustice and oppression in, for example, the over-familiar case of apartheid? The concept of incorruptible structures cries out for further elucidation and glaring warnings against its abuse. The seventh proposition states that "God's restoration of creation will be an elevation and enhancement of creation in its original form" (p. 102). Here the language seems to fall short of a full-orbed Irenaean doctrine of creation. Isn't God's restoration the fulfillment and completion of creation? *After these first chapters that establish the direction and tone for the book, the following chapters are remarkably comprehensive in doctrinal coverage and practical import. Most of the ground covered is traditional, but the authors' discussions are lively and well argued. They proceed mostly by engaging the works of others, so readers of these chapters will receive an education in the scholarly world of the doctrine of creation. One welcome contribution, among others, is an entire chapter devoted to "The Heavenly Realm," which retrieves this inescapable biblical teaching and guards against "over-spiritualizing" (pp. 202-22). *Throughout the book, the authors maintain their commitment to biblical exegesis. They do this through engagement with the work of other scholars, which occasionally threatens to overshadow the biblical text itself. Like the rest of us heirs of modernity, they struggle to achieve what Oswald Bayer says of Hamann: "Scripture interprets me and not I scripture" (p. 77). Still, their determination to be faithful to the biblical narrative as they "do theology" is one to emulate. *Their commitment to exegetically grounded theology is fully displayed in a chapter devoted to Genesis 1. As they engage critically with other scholars, they lay out the foundations of their doctrine of creation. The chapter concludes with an exposition of creation order in the Kuyperian tradition. For the authors, "Creation order is good news!" (p. 173), allowing for the flourishing of life. Injustice only appears against the backdrop of this order. They conclude the chapter with one of their many in-text excurses, asserting that "at the heart of the biblical metanarrative stands the cross, which alerts us to the grace of the biblical story and its resistance to violent coercion" (p. 174). *Here, a number of questions arise. How can the crucifixion of a Galilean peasant on a hill outside Jerusalem sometime around AD 33, be part of a metanarrative? Doesn't its particularity preclude that? Don't we need some other language? Would "Christ is Lord" suffice? How might their account of creation order change if the crucifixion was indeed at the heart of their account? Are there forms of coercion that are not violent? If so, does the biblical story resist those? Is "resistance" strong enough to represent the relationship between the story and violence? *The following chapter, "Place, Plants, Animals, Humans, and Creation," covers a wide range of topics grounded in exegetical theology that leads to changed disposition. This excellent chapter brings together all the strengths of the book: its biblical exegesis, theological maturity, and practices grounded in the first two. *In the chapters that follow, Ashford and Bartholomew cover a lot of ground and give direction from "the Kuyperian tradition." This is evident in their discussions of sin, common grace, culture making, and providence, among other things. Culture making (in chapter 9, "Creation and Culture") takes on particular importance in their account. It occurs in "spheres" that "have their own integrity and function according to unique, God-given principles" (p. 267). But like some of their earlier accounts of creation order, true relationality is mostly missing. Culture doesn't occur in spheres; it occurs in messy, boundary-crossing relationships between God, humans, nonhuman creation, and self. Yes, God is sovereign over all of life, but it is a relational sovereignty, not a spherical and principled sovereignty. Moreover, one could easily conclude that culture making, as in the Kuyperian tradition, is the main calling of human beings. Missional witness to Jesus Christ by the body of Christ is offstage. It is possible to see the so-called cultural mandate of Genesis 1:26-31 as our missional mandate, in which case the wholistic calling envisioned by a "cultural mandate" is really a full, biblical practice of the missional mandate of Genesis 1. The calling is lived out in the healing of relationships under the condition of fallenness through the crucifixion of the one "through whom and for whom all things have been created," and in obedience to the Great Commission and Great Commandment. *Perhaps one striking indication of the absence of a robust account of relationality is the rare appearance of the Holy Spirit in the book, especially a book that aspires to be trinitarian. This may also account for the relatively minor role that the people of God play in the authors' exposition. *Even in a lengthy review such as this, I have not adequately represented the breadth and depth of this book. The authors manage to comment, often at length and in depth, on an enormous range of life, which, of course, the doctrine of creation comprehends. *My criticisms of this book (I have more!) are a sign of my deep respect for and learning from Ashford and Bartholomew. Critical matters for the life and witness of God's people are at stake in the development of a mature, robust conversation about the doctrine of creation and living it out. Bruce Ashford and Craig Bartholomew articulate a mature, robust, Irenaean doctrine of creation reshaped by Dutch neo-Calvinism that should be a part of a larger conversation and urgent action as we seek to bear witness to the One Creator and Redeemer in these times. *Reviewed by Jonathan R. Wilson, PhD, Senior Consultant for Theological Integration, Canadian Baptist Ministries; and Teaching Fellow, Regent College, Vancouver, BC V6T 2E4.

The Dutch humanist Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) is widely acknowledged to have made important contributions to an influential doctrine of individual natural rights. In this article I argue that Grotius developed his rights doctrine primarily out of normative Roman sources, that is to say Roman law and ethics. If this Roman tradition has been as central to Grotius's influential writing on natural rights as I claim, why has it not received more scholarly attention? The reasons lie in the view that while rights are constitutive of modern liberty, they were unknown in classical antiquity.

Early modern readings of Epicureanism carried various prejudices and the term epicurean often designated an impious and potentially dangerous thinker. This was the case for Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza whose contemporaries compared his doctrine to Epicureanism on several occasions. However, how accurate would it be to affirm that Spinoza’s philosophy belongs to the neo-epicurean tradition? We find such a comparison in many 17th and 18th century texts, especially in works written by critics of his thought, such as François Fénelon or Jean La Placette. Epicurean doctrine on chance was compared to Spinoza’s theory on necessity, but despite the prejudices of the comparison, both Epicurus’s and Spinoza’s philosophies had an important influence on the Enlightenment, namely on French materialists. In our paper, we proceed to an analysis of this comparison and shed light on one of the most influential receptions of Epicurus’s philosophy in modernity. In this perspective, we show their inherent relation and focus more particularly on their modal theories; we thus examine the reasons why- contrary to other cases- the comparison was based less on ethical and mostly on metaphysical matters and we show at what extent it is legitimate.

This article explores the concept of subject in the works of Baruch Spinoza. The peculiarity of this research lies in the juxtaposition of the Cartesian concept of subject and the concept of subjectivation, which was developed in M. Foucault’s works of later period The goal is to disclose the specificity of the concept of subject in the works of Spinoza, formulate the key definitions used for revealing this topic, and to conduct a comparative analysis with the concept of subject of R. Descartes. The author examines such aspects of Spinozism as the interrelation between the higher subject and the mode of being, the concept of individuality and affects in interpretation of G. Deleuze, etc. The novelty of this research consists in providing a comprehensive analysis of some provisions of Spinoza's doctrine concerning the basic aspects of the concept of subject, as well as in determination of the crucial elements of the concept of subjectivation. The author concludes that Spinozism has shifted significantly from the Cartesian tradition. The first difference from Descartes lies in the ontological attitude of the Dutch philosopher, according to which a human can be viewed as a subject, not as a substance, but as a mode only. The second difference lies in introduction of the principle of dynamism, according to which the individual mode can have greater or lesser perfection, which could not comply with the permanence of Cartesian cogito.

The image of death as sleep seems to be of all times and places. While its origins go back to the pre-Christian period, it is still present in many modern obituaries. It lived on even in the Calvinist tradition, despite the fierce objections which Calvin himself made against it. Its attractiveness no doubt lies in its portrayal of death as a temporary state rather than something irreversible. This article analyses how this idea has been expressed in words and images found on Protestant tombs and grave slabs in the Dutch province of Groningen from the late sixteenth to the early nineteenth century. These monuments show how the sleeping dead developed into a general idea and indeed a formula which followed its own dynamics, independent of doctrine. The precise connection between body and soul often remains indefinite.

This article shows how the Dutch humanist Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), inspired by his friend Isaac Casaubon, sought to introduce a procedure for mitigating strife in the Christian church. He proclaimed a division between a set of self-evident, universally accepted key tenets, to be endorsed by all believers, and a larger number of secondary, not completely certain articles of faith, which were to be left open for friendly debate. The doctrine of the Trinity belonged to the second category; it should be treated in a careful, detached way, in words that did not go beyond the terminology of the Bible. However, defenders of this irenic stance laid themselves open to severe criticism: the example of the conservative Lutheran theologian Abraham Calovius illustrates how they were censured for giving up divinely inspired truth for a chimerical unionist ideal which cajoled them into reintroducing the early Christian heresy of Arianism, now called Socinianism.

Management is the science of regulating or influencing others to achieve the stated goals. Good management will create a great change in the business carried out, social conditions, and also personal changes. Good management of self will increase the intelligence possessed. One of them is spiritual intelligence. Spiritual intelligence is an effort to direct every action taken to always follow his personal abilities that have transcendent skills, as well as a great awareness to pass through life by using spiritual knowledge to find a way out about life's problems. One of the problems of life that develops in society is the circulation of extreme and negative understandings. One of them is radicalism. Radicalism in Indonesia has developed since the Dutch colonialism, and is increasingly fertile after the fall of the New Order regime. The proliferation of radicalism in Indonesia is influenced by the lack of spiritual awareness possessed. As a result the doctrines are easy to enter, one of them is the doctrine of jihad. Furthermore, radicalism is influenced by globalization and education. The effects of this radicalism cause unrest in the community. For this reason, serious efforts are needed in addressing this radicalism, both from the government, scientists and society in general. Therefore, effective management is needed to address radicalism that is flourishing in the community. One of them is the management of spiritual intelligence. The process of building spiritual intelligence management can be done by providing guidance, such as teaching the Koran, practicing prayer, practicing fasting, practicing Hajj and utilizing the method of the Prophet's preaching, namely exemplary approach, maximizing time utilization, fair attitude, praying kindness, activate the potential for thinking and developing mentally. Furthermore in education by providing moral education, which includes habituation, understanding of which good and bad deeds, assignments in which there is reproof, mental cleansing or the soul of all evil and despicable deeds, as well as the obligation to live morally. Key words: Management, Spiritual Intelligence, Radicalism

The purpose of this opening article is to give a brief overview of key foreign works, mainly monographs, concerning the account of matter in the treatise Contra Proclum John Philoponus, and thus to make evident the corresponding research situation to the Russian reader. John Philoponus is one of the last Greek commentators on Aristotle, both a neoplatonist and a Christian. In his work Contra Proclum (c. 529 AD) John Philoponus redefines the classical concept of matter, rejecting the universal qualityless prime matter of the Neoplatonists. At the beginning of the article, a brief historical introduction is given, which is necessary for the formulation of the problem. The author analyses several works relevant to the topic: an article by a Russian researcher M. N. Varlamova (2017) and foreign (German, English, Dutch, French) monographs by Michael Wolff (1971), Richard Sorabji (1988), Christian Wildberg (1988), Jeanne de Groot (1991), Frans de Haas (1997), Pantelis Golitzis (2008) and Pascal Mueller-Jourdan (2011). The overview covers the entire research history of John Philoponus’ account of matter. The author pays special attention to a detailed description of the current scientific discussions related to this issue: the positions of researchers, their approaches and perspectives. At the same time, the problem of Philoponic matter is also presented in close connection with many related research topics of the history of late-antique philosophy: the ontological status of species differences, the reception of the Aristotelian doctrine of categories, the separation of the Alexandrian and Athenian Neoplatonic traditions, etc. In conclusion, the article gives a general summary, identifying the most important discussions related to the topic of Philoponus’ matter, and finally proposes an author’s assessment of their current state.

AbstractAry Scheffer (1795-1858) is so generally included in the French School (Note 2)- unsurprisingly, since his career was confined almost entirely to Paris - that the fact that he was born and partly trained in the Netherlands is often overlooked. Yet throughout his life he kept in touch with Dutch colleagues and drew part of his inspiration from Dutch traditions. These Dutch aspects are the subject of this article. The Amsterdam City Academy, 1806-9 Ary Scheffer was enrolled at the Amsterdam Academy on 25 October 1806, his parents falsifying his date of birth in order to get him admitted at the age of eleven (fifteen was the oficial age) . He started in the third class and in order to qualify for the second he had to be one of the winners in the prize drawing contest. Candidates in this were required to submit six drawings made during the months January to March. Although no-one was supposed to enter until he had been at the Academy for four years, Ary Scheffer competed in both 1808 and 1809. Some of his signed drawings are preserved in Dordrecht. (Figs. 1-5 and 7), along with others not made for the contest. These last in particular are interesting not only because they reveal his first prowess, but also because they give some idea of the Academy practice of his day. Although the training at the Academy broadly followed the same lines as that customary in France, Italy and elsewhere (Note 4), our knowledge of its precise content is very patchy, since there was no set curriculum and no separate teachers for each subject. Two of Scheffer's drawings (Figs. 2 and 3) contain extensive notes, which amount to a more or less complete doctrine of proportion. It is not known who his teacher was or what sources were used, but the proportions do not agree with those in Van der Passe's handbook, which came into vogue in the 18th century, or with those of the canon of a Leonardo, Dürer or Lebrun. One gets the impression that what are given here are the exact measurements of a concrete example. Scheffer's drawings show him gradually mastering the rudiments of art. In earlier examples the hatching is sometimes too hasty (Fig. 4) or too rigidly parallel (Fig.5), while his knowledge of anatomy is still inadequate and his observation not careful enough. But right from the start he shows flair and as early as 1807 he made a clever drawing of a relatively complex group (Fig. 6) , while the difficult figure of Marsyas was already well captured in 1808 and clearly evinces his growing knowledge o f anatomy, proportion , foreshortening and the effects of light (Fig. 7). The same development can be observed in his portrait drawings. That of Gerardus Vrolik (1775-1859, Fig.8), a professor at the Atheneum Illustre (the future university) and Scheffer' s teacher, with whom he always kept in touch (Note 6), is still not entirely convincing, but a portrait of 1809, thought to be of his mother (Fig.9, Note 7), shows him working much more systematically. It is not known when he left the Academy, but from the summer of 1809 we find him in France, where he was to live with only a few breaks from 1811 to his death. The first paintings and the Amsterdam exhibitions of 1808 and 1810 Ary Scheffer's earliest known history painting, Hannibal Swearing to Avenge his Brother Hasdrubal's Death (Fig. 10) Notes 8-10) was shown at the first exhibition of living masters in Amsterdam in 1808. Although there was every reason for giving this subject a Neo-Classical treatment, the chiaroscuro, earthy colours and free brushwork show Scheffer opting for the old Dutch tradition rather than the modern French style. This was doubtless on the prompting of his parents,for a comment in a letter from his mother in 1810 (Note 12) indicates that she shared the reservations of the Dutch in general about French Neo-Classicism. (Note 11). As the work of a twelve to thirteen year old, the painting naturally leaves something to be desired: the composition is too crowded and unbalanced and the anatomy of the secondary figures rudimentary. In a watercolour Scheffer made of the same subject, probably in the 1820's, he introduced much more space between the figures (Fig. 11, Note 13). Two portraits are known from this early period. The first, of Johanna Maria Verbeek (Fig. 12, Note 14), was done when the two youngsters were aged twelve. It again shows all the characteristics of an early work, being schematic in its simplicity, with some rather awkward details and inadequate plasticity. On the other hand the hair and earrings are fluently rendered, the colours harmonious and the picture has an undeniable charm. At the second exhibition of works by living masters in 1810, Ary Scheffer showed a 'portrait of a painter' (Fig. 13), who was undoubtedly his uncle Arnoldus Lamme, who also had work in the exhibition as did Scheffer's recently deceased father Johan-Bernard and his mother Cornelia Scheffer-Lamme, an indication of the stimulating surroundings in which he grew up. The work attracted general attention (Note 16) and it does, indeed, show a remarkable amount of progress, the plasticity, effects of light, brushwork and colour all revealing skill and care in their execution. The simple, bourgeois character of the portrait not only fits in with the Dutch tradition which Scheffer had learned from both his parents in Amsterdam, but also has points in common with the recent developments in France, which he could have got to know during his spell in Lille from autumn 1809 onwards. A Dutchman in Paris Empire and Restoration, 1811-30 In Amsterdam Scheffer had also been laught by his mother, a miniature painter, and his father, a portrait and history painter (Note 17). After his father's death in June 1809, his mother, who not only had a great influence on his artistic career, but also gave his Calvinism and a great love of literature (Note 18), wanted him to finish his training in Paris. After getting the promise of a royal grant from Louis Napoleon for this (Note 19) and while waiting for it to materialize, she sent the boy to Lille to perfect his French as well as further his artistic training. In 1811 Scheffer settled in Paris without a royal grant or any hope of one. He may possibly have studied for a short time under Prudhon (Note 20) , but in the autumn of 1811 he was officially contracted as a pupil of Guérin, one of the leading artists of the school of David, under whom he mastered the formulas of NeD-Classicism, witness his Orpheus and Eurydice (Fïg.14), shown in the Salon of 1814. During his first ten years in Paris Scheffer also painted many genre pieces in order, so he said, to earn a living for himself and his mother. Guérin's prophecy that he would make a great career as a history painter (Note 21) soon came true, but not in the way Guérin thought it would, Scheffer participating in the revolution initiated by his friends and fellow-pupils, Géricault and Delacroix, which resulted in the rise of the Romantic Movement. It was not very difficult for him to break with Neo-Classicism, for with his Dutch background he felt no great affinity with it (Note 22). This development is ilustrated by his Gaston de Foix Dying on the Battlefield After his Victory at Ravenna, shown at the Salon of 1824, and The Women of Souli Throwing Themselves into the Abyss (Fig.15), shown at that of 1827-8. The last years of the Restoration and the July Monarchy. Influence of Rembrandt and the Dutch masters In 1829, when he seemed to have become completely assimilated in France and had won wide renown, Scheffer took the remarkable step of returning to the Netherlands to study the methods of Rembrandt and other Dutch old masters (Note 23) . A new orientation in his work is already apparent in the Women of Souli, which is more harmonious and considered in colour than the Gaston dc Foix (Note 24). This is linked on the one hand to developments in France, where numbers of young painters had abandoned extreme Romanticism to find the 'juste milieu', and on the other to Scheffer's Dutch background. Dutch critics were just as wary of French Romanticism as they had been of Neo-Classicism, urging their own painters to revive the traditions of the Golden Age and praising the French painters of the 'juste milieu'. It is notable how many critics commented on the influence of Rembrandt on Scheffer's works, e.g. his Faust, Marguérite, Tempête and portrait of Talleyrand at the Salon of 1851 (Note 26). The last two of these date from 1828 and show that the reorientation and the interest in Rembrandt predate and were the reasons for the return to the Netherlands in 1829. In 1834 Gustave Planche called Le Larmoyeur (Fig. 16) a pastiche of Rembrandt and A. Barbier made a comparable comment on Le Roi de Thule in 1839 (Note 27). However, as Paul Mantz already noted in 1850 (Note 28), Scheffer certainly did not fully adopt Rembrandt's relief and mystic light. His approach was rather an eclectic one and he also often imbued his work with a characteristically 19th-century melancholy. He himself wrote after another visit to the Netherlands in 1849 that he felt he had touched a chord which others had not attempted (Note 29) . Contacts with Dutch artists and writers Scheffer's links with the Netherlands come out equally or even more strongly in the many contacts he maintained there. As early as 1811-12 Sminck-Pitloo visited him on his way to Rome (Note 30), to be followed in the 1820's by J.C. Schotel (Note 31), while after 1830 as his fame increased, so the contacts also became more numerous. He was sought after by and corresponded with various art dealers (Note 33) and also a large number of Dutch painters, who visited him in Paris or came to study under him (Note 32) Numerous poems were published on paintings by him from 1838 onwards, while Jan Wap and Alexander Ver Huell wrote at length about their visits to him (Note 34) and a 'Scheffer Album' was compiled in 1859. Thus he clearly played a significant role in the artistic life of the Netherlands. International orientation As the son of a Dutch mother and a German father, Scheffer had an international orientation right from the start. Contemporary critics and later writers have pointed out the influences from English portrait painting and German religious painting detectable in his work (Note 35). Extracts from various unpublished letters quoted here reveal how acutely aware he was of what was likely to go down well not only in the Netherlands, but also in a country like England, where he enjoyed great fame (Notes 36-9) . July Monarchy and Second Empire. The last decades While most French artists of his generation seemed to have found their definitive style under the July Monarchy, Scheffer continued to search for new forms of expression. In the 1830's, at the same time as he painted his Rembrandtesque works, he also produced his famous Francesca da Rimini (Fig. 17), which is closer to the 'juste milieu' in its dark colours and linear accents. In the 1840's he used a simple and mainly bright palette without any picturesque effects, e.g. in his SS. Augustine and Monica and The Sorrows of the Earth (Note 41), but even this was not his last word. In an incident that must have occurred around 1857 he cried out on coming across some of his earlier works that he had made a mistake since then and wasted his time (Note 42) and in his Calvin of 1858 (Fig. 18) he resumed his former soft chiaroscuro and warm tones. It is characteristic of him that in that same year he painted a last version of The Sorrows of the Earth in the light palette of the 1840's. Despite the difficulty involved in the precise assessment of influences on a painter with such a complex background, it is clear that even in his later period, when his work scored its greatest successes in France, England and Germany, Scheffer always had a strong bond with the Netherlands and that he not only contributed to the artistic life there, but always retained a feeling for the traditions of his first fatherland. Appendix An appendix is devoted to a study of the head of an old man in Dordrecht, which is catalogued as a copy of a 17th-century painting in the style of Rembrandt done by Ary Scheffer at the age of twelve (Fig.19, Note 43). This cannot be correct, as it is much better than the other works by the twelve-year-old painter. Moreover, no mention is made of it in the catalogue of the retrospective exhibition held in Paris in 1859, where the Hannibal is given as his earliest work (Note 44). It was clearly unknown then, as it is not mentioned in any of the obituaries of 1858 and 1859 either. The earliest reference to it occurs in the list made bv Scheffer's daughter in 1897 of the works she was to bequeath to the Dordrecht museum. A clue to its identification may be a closely similar drawing by Cornelia Scheffer-Lamme (Fig. 20, Note 46), which is probably a copy after the head of the old man. She is known to have made copies after contemporary and 17th-century masters. The portrait might thus be attributable to Johan-Bernard Scheffer, for his wife often made copies of his works and he is known from sale catalogues to have painted various portraits of old men (Note 47, cf. Fig.21). Ary Scheffer also knew this. In 1839 his uncle Arnoldus Lamme wrote to him that he would look out for such a work at a sale (Note 48). It may be that he succeeded in finding one and that this portrait came into the possession of the Scheffer family in that way, but Johan-Bernard's work is too little known for us to be certain about this.

Chapter 2 begins the account of Arminian theology after Arminius, turning attention to the complexities of the continental Remonstrant and English Arminian theologies as they took shape in the seventeenth century. After a historical overview of the controversies surrounding the Synod of Dordt (including the British involvement in the Dutch controversies), we provide an account of the theology of Dutch Remonstrantism. After examining the relationship between Scripture and reason, we then turn attention to the doctrine of God, theological anthropology, and the doctrines of salvation. Moving across the North Sea, we then explore the development of doctrine within the English variants of Arminian theology, describing issues related to the doctrine of the Trinity, the proper understanding of the divine attributes, the extent of the atonement, and the doctrine of justification and its relation to good works.

Abstract Great Dutch humanist, scholar, and priest, Desiderius Erasmus (1459–1536) applied new philological methods to biblical texts, producing the Novum Instrumentum in 1516, an annotated Greek text of the New Testament with a revision of the Vulgate (the standard Latin translation by St Jerome). Erasmus diligently revised this work, Wnding many supporters in the Church, and many opponents, notably Gregory Martin, later translator of the Rheims New Testament (1582). Moreover, contributing to the great controversy over Luther’s doctrine of predestination, Erasmus aYrmed the freedom of the will in De libero arbitrio (On Free Will, 1524) and Hyperaspistes (1526). He wrote schoolbooks for Europe and urged reform of the clergy and of church practices (see fiction).