Some Questions and Answers about God’s Covenant and the Sacrament That Is a Seal of God’s Covenant. Robert Rollock
Читать онлайн книгу.
quod Foederis Dei sigillum est. In 2009 I published a translation of the first half of Rollock’s catechism—that half dealing directly with the covenants—in Mid-America Journal of Theology.36 In revisiting Rollock’s catechism sometime later, I realized that a translation of the entire catechism would be useful for at least three reasons: first of all, because it’s preferable to have any work translated in its entirety rather than in part, especially so for students of that work’s author or doctrinal themes; secondly, because the latter half of Rollock’s catechism—that half dealing with the sacraments—provides further illustration of the theological utility that Rollock discovered in God’s duplex foedus, and so stands to enrich our appreciation for Rollock’s covenant thought; and thirdly, because Rollock’s existing works in translation include nothing on the subject of the sacraments, and access to his thoughts on that subject might serve both students of Rollock’s theology and students of early modern (Scottish) Reformed Sacramentology. Rollock’s questions and answers on the sacraments—appearing here for the first time in translation—stand, in other words, to buttress the claims I have made above about Rollock’s significance as a covenant theologian, and to inform scholarly judgments about various claims that have been made concerning post-Reformation Scottish thought on baptism and the Lord’s Supper.37
Rollock dedicated his catechism to William Little, the public official who had been instrumental in bringing him to Edinburgh. Rollock’s letter of dedication marks his recognition of Little’s patronage and paternal care for him. Little apparently had a son, also named William, enrolled at the University of Edinburgh when Rollock published his work. Rollock makes mention of the younger Little in his dedication, observing with good, humanist humility that his “small trifle” of a catechism comprises questions “about God’s covenant and the sacraments that are childish [pueriles]” but might “be useful to children [pueres] and students of the rudiments,” not least William Little’s son. Rollock actually sounds a rather ambivalent note regarding the younger William Little, expressing his hope that the son might eventually achieve the virtues of his father, but suggesting that if he does not, the failure “must be imputed to the son himself and not to the father.” One gets the impression Rollock would like to have added, perhaps on behalf of the entire university, “or to us.”38
My translation of Rollock’s catechism itself is, I think, fairly straightforward. The headings included throughout the catechism are original to his work. The only real liberty I have taken in translation is the addition of consecutive numbers to the questions. I added these on the assumption that they might prove a useful tool for persons wishing to reference Rollock’s catechism in the future. I have kept critical commentary to a minimum, very occasionally noting Rollock’s mistaken referencing of biblical proof-texts, highlighting the significance that a particular point made might have to scholarly questions/debates about early modern covenant theology, and/or pointing readers towards earlier questions that illumine the meaning of later ones that, at least in my judgment, seem slightly difficult to understand on their own.
Also included in this volume are three translated sections from Robert Rollock’s 1593 Romans commentary. The three sections in question were titled by Rollock himself “On the Covenant of God,” “On the Sacrament,” and “On Good Works.” These particular sections of his work on Romans appeared in a series of short, doctrinal summaries that Rollock inserted between commentary on Romans 8:30 and Romans 8:31 in order to explicate in greater detail those divine benefits concisely comprehended in Scripture’s reference (in Rom 8:29–30) to the foreknowledge, predestination, calling, justification, and glorification of believers.39
My decision to translate these specific theological tracts reflects recognition of the significant use they make, each in its own particular way, of the notion of a pre-fall covenant. The content of the first two tracts—“On the Covenant of God” and “On the Sacrament”—very much corresponds with the content of Rollock’s catechism in its respective halves. “On Good Works” covers unique ground in relation to the subject of Rollock’s catechism, and thereby discloses unique theological potential for the foedus operum. Though covering much ground in common with Rollock’s catechism, these selections from Rollock’s Romans commentary belong to a different genre of literature, and thus it is my hope that they might serve to illumine his doctrine as discovered in the catechism (and vice versa). These texts have added historical interest insofar as they belonged to a publication that was substantially more popular and influential in Rollock’s day than either his 1596 catechism or his 1597 Tractatus, at least if popularity and influence be measured by publication history. Rollock’s Romans commentary saw two editions in Edinburgh (1593 and 1594) and three editions in Geneva (1595, 1596, and 1608). It seems very likely that it served as the primary vehicle for the transmission of Rollock’s covenantal ideas to others.
An earlier effort of mine to translate Rollock’s “On the Covenant of God” and “On the Sacrament” appeared in 2013 in Reformation & Renaissance Review under the title “Robert Rollock on covenant and sacrament: two texts.” That earlier work appears here with permission, but it should be noted that—as with the section of Rollock’s catechism previously published but appearing here—I have revisited, revised, and I hope improved my earlier work for this volume. My resulting and final translation of these texts is, like that of the catechism, fairly straightforward in my judgment. I have taken the necessary liberties with punctuation and word order that translation from Latin to English requires, but none I hope with Rollock’s meaning. Perhaps one item worth noting is that I have followed the paragraph divisions found in the Geneva publications of Rollock’s Romans commentary, even though these were almost certainly introduced by the Genevan printer rather than Rollock. In the original Edinburgh edition of the work, Rollock (or his printer) proved far too reluctant on the matter of paragraph breaks for modern tastes.
1. Quoted in Woolsey, “Rollock,” 3.
2. Rollock, Works, 1:10.
3. Woolsey, “Rollock,” 2.
4. Rollock, Works, 1:xxxix–lxv.
5. Ibid., 1:lxv–lxvi.
6. Woolsey, “Rollock,” 7–9.
7. A bibliography of Rollock’s works can be found in Rollock, Works, 1:xc–xcv.
8. Rollock, Works, 1:lxxx–lxxxvii.
9. Michael McGiffert names Rollock “the first full–fledged federalist” on the basis of Rollock’s mature treatment of the covenant of works in addition to the covenant of grace in the Scottish divine’s 1597 Tractatus de vocatione efficaci (“Perkinsian Moment,” 146). Works which explore Rollock’s role in the development of Reformed covenant theology in some detail include Denlinger, “Rollock on Covenant and Sacrament”; Denlinger, “Rollock’s Catechism”; Fesko, Westminster Assembly, 135–36; Isbell, “Covenant of Works,” 41–51; Letham, “Foedus Operum,” 457–67; Macedo, “Covenant Theology of Rollock”; Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 512–39.
10. There are notable exceptions, including Backus, “Piscator Misconstrued”; Ellis, “Eternal Decree”; Garner, “Discourse Analysis.”
11. See Rollock, Works, 1:33–55.
12. Woolsey, Unity